Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K.Srinivasulu vs Ch.Bhajanlal And Ors on 6 April, 2026
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
APHC010496692023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3327]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7530/2023
Between:
1. K.SRINIVASULU, (A-1) S/O.LATE SRI K.RAMAKRISHNA
MURTHY OCC.DTP OPERATOR, SVBC LTD., DOOR
NO.18-2-107, BLOCK NO.A, FLAT NO.402 ASHOKNAGAR,
TIRUPATI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH
2. DOSAPATI GURU RAJA RAO SARMA @ D.G.RAJA RAO (A-
2), S/O.LATE SRI D.HANUMANTHA RAO OCC.AV
COORDINATOR, SBBC TTD, TIRUPATI R/O.DOOR NO.6-8-
986, NGOS COLONY OPP.MUNICIPAL PARK, TIRUPATI
TIRUPATI DISTRICT, AP
3. D.ANIL KUMAR (A-3), S/O.D.VENKATESA,
OCC.SR.ASSISTANT, SVBC TTD TIRUPATI, R/O.DOOR
NO.10-11-389 J.J.TOWERS, JAGANNADHAPURAM
DODDAPAURAM STREET, TIRUPATI TIRUPATI DISTRICT,
AP
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P. AT AMARAVATI.
2. SURESH KUMAR GEDELA, S/O. GANAPATHI RAO G.
(WRONGLY MENTIONED AS G.SURESH KUMAR IN FIR)
AGED 39 YEARS, OCC.FORMER CEO, SRI
VENKATESWARA BAKTHI CHANNEL PRESENTLY
WORKING AS MANAGING DIRECTOR GIRIJANA
COOPERATIVE CORPORATION LTD., VISAKHAPATNAM -
530 017, AP
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of
BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum
2
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.7530 of 2023
of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to
call for the records in C.C.No.1337/2023 on the file of the court of
the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi, Chittoor
District, Andhra Pradesh and quash the same as the same is illegal
and abuse of process of law
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying
that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to
grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the
petitioners/A-1 to A-3 in C.C.No.1337/2023 on the file of the court of
the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi, Chittoor
District, Andhra Pradesh pend.ng disposal of the above Crl.P.
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. TURAGA SAI SURYA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. SC FOR TTD
2. NVS PRASADA VARMA
The Court made the following:
3
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.7530 of 2023
ORDER
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'CrPC') has been filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, to quash the charge sheet in Calendar Case No.1337 of 2023 pending on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, arising out of a case in Crime No.200 of 2021 of Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati, registered against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 and other accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 384 and 505 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 'IPC').
2. The allegations levelled as against the petitioners/A1 to A3 in the report lodged by respondent No.2/de facto complainant, in brief, are that, the petitioners/A1 to A3 and accused Nos.4 and 5 are employees of Sri Venkateswara Bhakthi Channel (SVBC), Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), Tirupati in various wings. A Committee, appointed by the SVBC, TTD, obtained reports from the TTD Vigilance & Cyber Security Wing, regarding the conduct of employees' viz., 1. Prakash (Accountant), 2. Mohan (Junior Assistant), 3. Ram Murthy (Editor), 4. J.V.V.Satyanarayana (Editor),
5. Radesh (Editor), 6. M.S.S. Muralikrishna, (Senior Manager), 7. Somasekhar, (Senior Manager), 8. Accused No.5/N.Srinivasa Rao 4 SRK, J Crl.P.No.7530 of 2023 (Senior Manager), and 9. G.Krishna Rao (Editor), who had browsed sexually explicit content in the office, and after enquiring into the same, action was taken against them. Similarly, considering the performance and conduct of the employee viz., Accused No.1/ K.Srinivasulu (DTP Operator) in his work, action was taken against all the delinquents by reverting them to the lower post. It is the allegation against the petitioners/A1 to A3 and other accused that they sent anonymous letter on 30.03.2021 to the Office of the Additional Executive Officer, TTD making baseless allegations against the Administrative Officers of SVBC Channel, more particularly against respondent No.2/de facto complainant-Chief Executive Officer, and L.W2/A.V.Dharma Reddy, Additional Executive Officer of, SVBC Channel, TTD, Tirupati attributing motives referring to the appraisals and actions taken against the employees working in Broadcasting Channel. It was revealed that the petitioners/A1 to A3 and other accused sent the anonymous letter, blackmailed the administrative officials, including the respondent No.2/de facto complainant that the Managing Director and the CEO are not worthy, tampered the image of the public servants i.e. Administrative Officials, by attributing motives, defamative and intimidated statements knowing fully well that they are creating infirmity, extorting and public mischief with a mala fide 5 SRK, J Crl.P.No.7530 of 2023 intention to put the respondent No.2/de facto complainant and others into fear and trouble due to reverting them from higher grade to lower grade on administrative grounds. Basing on the report of respondent No.2/de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.200 of 2021 of Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 384 and 505 read with 34 of IPC and investigated into. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A3 would contend that there is no incriminating material or evidence to connect the petitioners/A1 to A3 to the offences alleged that they addressed the anonymous letter with an intention to defame the respondent No.2/de facto complainant and others. Learned counsel would further contend that to attract the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 384 of IPC, there should be an allegation of causing hurt voluntarily and extortion, but neither the contents of the report nor the statements under Section 161 CrPC disclose any such ingredients. According to learned counsel, in order to attract an offence punishable under Section 505 of IPC, there should be an allegation that the petitioners/A1 to A3 make, publish or circulate any statements, rumour or report with intent to cause fear, but the 6 SRK, J Crl.P.No.7530 of 2023 report of the respondent No.2/de facto complainant and the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer are lacking the same. He further submits that in the absence of any prima facie case made out even if the entire allegations are taken as true and correct, continuation of impugned proceedings against the accused is nothing but abuse of process of Court and hence, he prays to allow the Criminal Petition.
4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that prior to the subject crime, action was taken against some of the delinquent employees, as they had browsed sexually explicit content in the office and they were reverted from higher post to lower post on administrative grounds and keeping the same in mind, the petitioners/A1 to A3 and other accused, in order to tarnish the image of respondent No.2/de facto complainant and other administrative officials of the SVBC Channel, TTD, through an anonymous letter, attributed motives, defamed and made intimidated statements with a mala fide intention to put the respondent No.2/de facto complainant and others into fear and trouble for their exploitation. According to learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, after thorough enquiry, the Vigilance and Cyber Security Wing found that the petitioners/A1 to A3 sent the 7 SRK, J Crl.P.No.7530 of 2023 anonymous letters, and there is a prima facie made out against the petitioners, and hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A3 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the entire material available on record.
6. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the report. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in State of Haryana Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and ors.1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of 1 AIR 1992 SC 604 8 SRK, J Crl.P.No.7530 of 2023 the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code;
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code;
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and 9 SRK, J Crl.P.No.7530 of 2023 continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
7. The offences that are alleged as against the petitioners/A1 to A3 are punishable under Sections 323, 384 and 505 read with 34 of IPC. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Sections 323 and 384 read with 34 of IPC are that the petitioners/A1 to A3 in furtherance of their common intention, caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to respondent No.2/de facto complainant by putting him in fear of injury and such fear was used to dishonestly induce the person to deliver property or any valuable security. The essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 505 read with 34 of IPC are that the petitioners/A1 to A3 made, published or circulated a statement, rumour or report against the respondent No.2/de facto complainant, with an intent to cause or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public. To make it clear, the prosecution has to prove that the petitioners/A1 to A3 shared a prearranged plan to induce the respondent No.2/de facto complainant through fear of injury, to 10 SRK, J Crl.P.No.7530 of 2023 voluntarily cause him physical pain and to spread false, alarming information to cause public disorder.
8. A perusal of the allegations in the charge sheet coupled with the contents of the statement of respondent No.2/ de facto complainant recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'CrPC') goes to show that on 30.03.2021 the Additional Executive Officer, TTD & MD, SVBC, Tirumala Office received an anonymous letter making baseless allegations against the Administrative Officers of SVBC, more particularly against the Managing Director and the Chief Executive Officer attributing motives referring to the appraisals and actions taken against the employees working in Broadcasting Channel. A perusal of the material on record further goes to show that the contents of the anonymous letter are abusive, malicious and defamatory, containing intimidating statements harming the dignity of public servants.
9. A perusal of the contents of the charge sheet goes to show that the employees of SVBC Channel, TTD viz., 1. Prakash (Accountant), 2. Mohan (Junior Assistant), 3. Ram Murthy (Editor),
4. J.V.V.Satyanarayana (Editor), 5. Radesh (Editor), 6. M.S.S. Muralikrishna, (Senior Manager), 7. Somasekhar, (Senior 11 SRK, J Crl.P.No.7530 of 2023 Manager), 8. Accused No.5/N.Srinivasa Rao (Senior Manager), and
9. G.Krishna Rao (Editor), were said to have browsed sexually explicit content in the office, and after considering their immoral conduct, the administrative officials took action against them by reverting them from higher grade to lower grade i.e. from IV Grade to V Grade. It was further disclosed that basing on the conduct and performance of 1st petitioner/A1, who is working as DTP Operator, he was also reverted to lower grade post. As a consequence thereto, on 30.03.2021, the Office of SVBC Channel, TTD received anonymous letter attributing motives referring to the appraisals and action taken against the employees working in the Broadcasting Channel.
10. As per the contents of the charge sheet, considering the conduct and performance of 1st petitioner/A1, he was said to have been reverted from higher grade to lower grade post. Whereas, there is no recital in the charge sheet with regard to the appraisal of other accused i.e. petitioner Nos.2 and 3/A2 and A3 and other accused. When such is the case, it is quite surprising as to how the respondent No.2/de facto complainant came to conclusion that 1st petitioner/A1 along with petitioner Nos.2 and 3/A2 and A3 might have addressed the anonymous letter to the 12 SRK, J Crl.P.No.7530 of 2023 office of the SVBC Channel, TTD, blackmailed and tampered the image of the administrative officials. As per the contents of the report of respondent No.2/de facto complainant, it is 1. Prakash (Accountant), 2. Mohan (Junior Assistant), 3. Ram Murthy (Editor),
4. J.V.V.Satyanarayana (Editor), 5. Radesh (Editor), 6. M.S.S. Muralikrishna, (Senior Manager), 7. Somasekhar, (Senior Manager), 8. Accused No.5/N.Srinivasa Rao (Senior Manager), and
9. G.Krishna Rao (Editor) along with 1st petitioner/A1 were reverted from higher grade to lower grade, but not petitioner Nos.2 and 3/A2 and A3.
11. A perusal of the report of respondent No.2/de facto complainant further goes to show that a Committee constituted by the SVBC, TTD after obtaining report from the TTD Vigilance and Cyber Security Wing regarding the conduct of the aforesaid persons, reverted them from higher grade post to lower grade post. In respect of the anonymous letter also they took the assistance of TTD Vigilance and Cyber Security Wing, and reported the case to the police that the petitioners/A1 to A3 and other accused might have addressed the anonymous letter, tampering the image of public servants. But, prima facie it appears that the Investigating Officer straightaway registered the case against the petitioners/A1 13 SRK, J Crl.P.No.7530 of 2023 to A3, without conducting proper inquiry as to whether they are persons who addressed the said anonymous letter to the office or not.
12. Furthermore, the allegations levelled as against the petitioners/A1 to A3 do not make out a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 384 and 505 read with 34 of IPC, as there is no bodily pain, disease or infirmity caused to respondent No.2/de facto complainant and no property was delivered to the petitioners/A1 to A3 by putting the respondent No.2/de facto complainant in fear of injury. There is no material on record to connect the petitioners/A1 to A3 to the offence punishable under Section 505 read with 34 of IPC that they published or circulated a statement, rumour or report against the respondent No.2/de facto complainant, with an intent to cause or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public. The case appears to have been registered only on a mere suspicion, but suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. Even if the entire accusations made as against the petitioners/A1 to A3 are accepted as true and correct, no prima facie case for the offences alleged is not made out against them and the chances of convicting them when the trial takes place are bleak and remote. When such is the 14 SRK, J Crl.P.No.7530 of 2023 case, there is no point in allowing them to face the entire ordeal of trial. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is convinced and quashes the proceedings in respect of petitioners/A1 to A3.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Calendar Case No.1337 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, as against the petitioners/A1 to A3, are quashed.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 6th April, 2026.
DNB