Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: Crl.P.No.6283 OF 2025, 6409 OF 2025, 6410 OF 2025
& 6411 OF 2025
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
03. 01.7.2025 CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6283 of 2025,
6409 of 2025, 6410 of 2025 and 6411 of
2025
Notice to unofficial respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) is permitted to take out personal notice to unofficial respondent by RPAD and file proof of service thereof, into the Registry within two weeks.
2. The petitioners in these Criminal Petitions are arrayed as accused in crime No.640 of 2025 of Nallapadu police station, Guntur district. They filed the respective Criminal Petitions seeking to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid crime against them.
3. Since all the Criminal Petitions arise out of same crime, common order is being passed in all the Criminal Petitions.
2SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
4. Pursuant to a report dated
18.06.2025 lodged by one Smt. Chili Lurdu Mery, originally, the aforesaid case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 106 (1) BNS. The allegations in the report lodged by her are that on 18.06.2025 at about 9.00 AM, her husband Singaiah left their house stating that either he would go to his work or he would go to see Sri Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy who was visiting Rentapadu of Sattenapalli mandal on that day; that her brother Sarath Kumar received a phone call stating that the said Singaiah met with an accident and was lying near Anjaneyaswamy idol situated in Etukuru by-pass road with injuries, and on that, when the informant, along with her brother and son, were proceeding to the said place, her brother received a phone call stating that the injured was being taken to Government General Hospital, Guntur in Ambulance and they were asked to come to the Hospital; that when they reached the GGH, Guntur, they found that the injured succumbed to the injuries.
3SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE
5. After lapse of four days, basing on the statement of one Nimmakayala Durga Rao dated 22.6.2025, the Section of law was altered from Section 106 (1) BNS to Section 105 read with 49 BNS.
6. These cases came up for hearing on 27.6.2025 for admission. On the said date, the learned Advocate General appearing for State sought time till Tuesday i.e. 01.07.2025. As the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners apprehended that there was threat of arrest to the petitioners, this Court passed an Order on that day directing not to take coercive steps against the petitioners, and directed to list the matter to today at the request of the learned Advocate General. When the cases came up today, the learned Advocate General sought further time to rely upon certain documents. It is settled proposition of law that in a petition filed under Section 528 BNSS seeking to quash a proceedings, this Court has to rely upon the averments contained in the FIR or charge sheet, and examine whether a prima facie case for the 4 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE offences alleged is made out or not, even if entire accusations in the said documents are accepted as true and correct.
7. Heard Sri S.Sriram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners.
8. The learned senior counsel submits that originally, pursuant to a report lodged by wife of the deceased Singaiah, the case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 106 (1) BNS and subsequently, basing on the statement of one Durga Rao, the Section of law was altered from Section 106 (1) BNS to Section 105 read with 49 BNS and A.2 to A.6 were added. The learned senior counsel submits that the even accepting the entire accusations to be true, the offence under Section 105 BNS would not attract as against the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners are only inmates of the vehicle, and criminal liability cannot be fastened on the inmates present in the vehicle. He submits that the police launched prosecution as against the driver of the vehicle. The learned senior counsel submits 5 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE that in order to attract the offence punishable under Section 105 read with 49 BNS, it is essential that there should be intention on the part of the petitioners to cause death of the deceased, but because the petitioners were inmates, there would not be any intention or knowledge on their part to cause death of the deceased.
9. This Court perused the statement of Nimmakayala Durga Rao. It goes to show that around 10.30 to 11.00 AM on the fateful day, the former Chief Minister arrived in a black car with pink stripes, in a convoy from Tadepalli direction on the Highway; the convoy stopped right at the place where he was standing near divider; that all the gathered party workers rushed towards him, and on that, the former Chief Minister stepped out and greeted the public; that at that moment, while the car was turning left towards service road, a man fell under the front tyre of the car on driver's side, and on that, four persons, who were standing on the convoy, got down and shifted the said person beneath trees near divider. He further stated that thereafter, the convoy proceeded 6 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE through the service road, and he went and saw the injured person with bleeding multiple injuries, and after some time, an Ambulance arrived and took the injured to hospital. He stated that he does not know the injured person at that time and later he came to know that the said person passed away. On the strength of the said statement, police altered the Section of law from Section 106 (1) BNS to Section 105 read with 49 BNS on 22.06.2025 at 19.30 hours.
10. During the course of investigation, police secured security staff of the convoy of the former Chief Minister and examined them as L.Ws.2 to 17 and recorded their detailed statements. It is stated by the investigating officer in the Memo dated 25.6.2025 filed before the Magistrate that as per the statement of witnesses and the summing of evidence, it is clear that A.1 to A.6 clearly knew that while taking turn, due to speedy driving, even though it is known that people can die, if they fall under the car, A.2 to A.6 in the car instructed A.1 to drive faster, due to which A.1 drove the car at high speed at the crowded place, while taking turn, the 7 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE deceased fell under car of A.1 to A.6 as A.2 to A.6 in the car hurrying A.1 to haste, though the public raised screams to stop the car, A.1 drove the car without stopping, and the car dragged the deceased for some distance, as a result of which he sustained severe bleeding injuries and died.
11. Section 105 BNS deals with 'punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. According to the said Section, whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment for either description for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
8SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE
12. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther & another v. State of Maharashtra1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:
(paragraphs 17 & 17.3).
"17. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Keshub Mahindra (supra). However, on going through the aforesaid judgment, we are of the view that facts in Keshub Mahindra and facts in the present case are poles apart. Keshub Mahindra arose out of the in-famous Bhopal Gas tragedy. A highly dangerous and toxic gas escaped from a tank in the Bhopal factory belonging to Union Carbide India Limited. As a result of such leakage, 3828 human beings lost their lives; 18922 suffered permanent injuries;
7172 suffered temporary
disablement; 1313 suffered
temporary disablement caused by permanent injuries; and permanent partial disablement was suffered by 2680 persons. While 40 human beings suffered from permanent total disablement, a total of 2544 animals died. Criminal proceedings were initiated against the company and officials belonging to the company. Charges were framed under Sections 304 Part II/324/326/429 IPC read with Section 35 IPC. Some of the accused persons challenged such 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 520 9 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE framing of charge before the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur. However, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision application whereafter the matter came up before this Court. In Keshub Mahindra (supra), this Court upon perusal of the material on record held that charges under Section 304 Part II, 324, 326 and 429 of IPC were not attracted at all. Framing of such charges against the concerned accused persons fell short of even prima-facie case. It was observed that mere act of running a plant as per permission granted by the authorities would not be a criminal act. This Court held that:
"20. .......Consequently in our view taking the entire material as aforesaid on its face value and assuming it to represent the correct factual position in connection with the operation of the plant at Bhopal on that fateful night it could not be said that the said material even prima facie called for framing of a charge against the accused concerned under Section 304 Part II IPC on the specious plea that the said act of the accused amounted to culpable homicide only because the operation of the plant on that night ultimately resulted in deaths of a number of human beings and cattle."10
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE
17.3. In so far facts of the present case is concerned, the two deceased employees of appellant No. 1 were undertaking the work of decoration of the front side of the shop. As part of the said work, they were working on the sign board which was approximately at a height of 12 feet from the ground level. For this purpose, they were provided with an iron ladder. While working on the sign board, they were struck by electricity as a result of which they got electrocuted and fell down resulting in multiple injuries leading to their death. It was purely accidental. On these basic facts, no prima facie case can be said to be made out against the appellants for committing an offence under Section 304A IPC, not to speak of Section 304 Part II IPC. In any case, the Trial Court only considered culpability of the appellants qua Section 304 Part II IPC as the committing Magistrate had committed the case to the Court of Sessions confining the allegations against the appellant to Section 304 Part II IPC and not Section 304A IPC."
13. It is also pertinent to refer to another decision in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & others2, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: (paragraphs 33.17 & 33.18).
2 (2021) 19 SCC 401 11 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE
"33.17. Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order."
14. In order to attract an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, death must not have been caused with the specific intention to kill or the knowledge that the act would be likely to cause death in the way that would constitute murder. On a perusal of the complaint and other documents which are integral part of the complaint, taking them on their face value, prima facie, no offence under Section 105 IPC is made out. Admittedly, the petitioners were only inmates of the car. There is neither intention nor knowledge on their part 12 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE so as to bring the petitioners within the ambit of Section 105 BNS.
15. Generally, this Court does not show any indulgence at the stage of FIR, but if the Court comes to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out even if entire accusations are accepted as true and correct, then there is no bar for this Court to interfere at the stage of admission. The present case on hand is one of such exceptional cases where this Court feels that it would be appropriate to indulge in passing orders.
16. In view of the foregoing reasons, there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings in crime No.640 of 2025 of Nallapadu police station, Guntur district, in respect of the petitioners.
Post after two weeks.
________ (SRK, J) DRK