Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P Jagadeesh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 January, 2026
APHC010395362025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8007/2025
Between:
1. P JAGADEESH, S/O. P.PUTTANNA, AGED 34 SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE, ANANATHAPURAM DISTRICT
2. V SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. LATE V. SATYANARAYANA, AGED 61,
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(SDPO) ANANATHAPURAM
URBAN, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
3. AMUDALA SRINIVAS, S/O. A. VARADARAJULU, AGED 56, DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(SDPO), GUNTAKAL,
ANANATHAPURAM DISTRICT
4. B MAHANANDI, S/O. B. RAGHU RAM, AGED 43, INSPECTOR OF
POLICE (SHO), URAVAKONDA POLICE STATION, ANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH BUILDINGS,
AT AMARAVATI.
2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR, GENERAL OF POLICE(DIG)
ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
3. SAKE ROJA, D/O. SAKE ANAND, AGED 29, R/O. D.NO.1/123,
LATHAVARAM VILLAGE, URAVAKONDA MANDAL,
ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. POSANI AKASH
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PARTY IN PERSON
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
2
ORDER:
1. The instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 is preferred by the Petitioners / Proposed Accused, seeking quashment of the docket order dated 30.06.2025 passed in C.F.No.736 of 2025 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram.2 The core challenge is to the legality of the learned Special Judge's order passed under Section 175(3) BNSS, by which the private complaint in C.F. No.736 of 2025 was referred for investigation and report. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AT THE BAR
2. Heard Mr. Posani Akash, learned counsel for the Petitioners; Respondent No.3 who appeared as party-in-person and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. The sum and substance of the contentions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is as follows:
a. Respondent No.3 filed a private complaint in C.F.No.736 of 2025 under Section 175(3) BNSS (corresponding to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.), arraying the Petitioners who are Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendents of Police and Inspector of Police respectively, as Accused.1
Hereinafter, referred to as BNSS, in short.2
Hereinafter, referred to as Learned Special Court, in short.3
b. The learned Special Judge, vide order dated 30.06.2025, mechanically referred the complaint for investigation and report without recording reasons or demonstrating application of judicial mind.
c. The alleged incident pertains to 25.03.2025, whereas the Petitioners being Police Officials, had been on official duties at different places at the relevant time. Respondent No.3 lodged a complaint with Respondent No.2 on the very same day and on the next day i.e., on 26.03.2025, she lodged a private complaint under Section 175(3) of BNSS alleging inaction on the part of Respondent No.2.
d. The allegations made in the complaint by Respondent No.3 are utterly false and baseless. The alleged abuse against Respondent No.3 in the name of her caste was in chorus, which cannot constitute any offence under SCs & STs(PoA) Act. Mandatory prerequisites under Section 175(3) BNSS were not examined; there is no satisfaction recorded regarding compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) BNSS, nor any supporting reasons, contrary to the law laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.3 e. Allegations are bald and omnibus, lacking corroboration. Respondent No.3 is a habitual complainant, having filed about 35 complaints, many under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, and received compensation in several cases, indicating abuse of process. Continuation of proceedings amounts to harassment and abuse of law, causing irreparable prejudice and serious 3 (2015) 6 SCC 287 4 damage to the Petitioners' career. Ultimately learned counsel prays to quash the impugned order passed in C.F. No.736 of 2025.
4. The brief submissions of the Respondent No.3 who appeared as party-in-person are as follows:
a. Due to refusal by her father to hand over assigned land under the YSR Housing Scheme, Petitioners herein approached Respondent No.3 on 25.03.2025 at 8.30 a.m., while she was going to M.R.O Office, Uravakonda Mandal, and beat her with hands and kicked with legs and also abused her in filthy language, invoking her caste.
b. A complaint was lodged with the DIG, DGP and Home Minister on 25.03.2025, but no action was taken. A further complaint was sent to DIG, DGP and Home Minister by registered post, which also evoked no response. Upon filing a private complaint under Section 175(3) BNSS, the learned Special Judge referred the complaint to the concerned DIG of Police with a request to entrust the matter to any other competent investigating officer for investigation and report.
c. In compliance with the judgment in Priyanka Srivastava (supra), all relevant documents along with an affidavit were filed with the private complaint. Specific allegations are made against the Petitioners regarding commission of the offences, warranting investigation. At this stage, the proceedings cannot be quashed; hence, she sought dismissal of the petition.5
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that she has nothing further to add in this matter and the Court may pass appropriate orders.
6. Having heard the submissions, this Court has perused the material available on record in detail.
DETERMINATION BY THIS COURT
7. The Respondent No.3 herein filed a private complaint and preferred an application under Section 175 (3) BNSS. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge vide order dated 30.06.2025 directed the DIG of Police to entrust the matter to any other competent investigating officer to investigate the same and submit report, purportedly in exercise of the powers vested under Section 175 (3) BNSS.
8. This Court, vide an interim order dated 31.07.2025 granted stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 30.06.2025 in CF No.736 of 2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, and the same is extended from time to time.
9. Section 173 BNSS which is the corresponding provision to Section 154 Cr.P.C. deals with the procedure concerning prompt and proper record of the information in cognizable cases.
Cr.P.C. BNSS Section 154 Section 173
Information in cognizable cases. Information in cognizable cases. (3) Any person aggrieved by a (4) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in refusal on the part of an officer in 6 charge of a police station to record charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub- the information referred to in sub- section (1) may send the substance section (1), may send the substance of such information, in writing and by of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such provided by this Sanhita, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence. in relation to that offence failing which such aggrieved person may make an application to the Magistrate.
(emphasis added)
10. Section 173 (4) BNSS, which is relevant for the present determination is similar to Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C. to most extent. The new addition in Section 173 (4) BNSS is simply the statutory embodiment of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) providing an express statutory remedy to the aggrieved person to approach the Magistrate after refusal by police authorities. 7
11. In Priyanka Srivastava (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that prior to making an application to the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the applicant must make applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C., and that such applications must be supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant. The relevant paragraphs read as follows;
"30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores.
31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should 8 be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR."
(emphasis supplied)
12. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu Venkatesh v. The State of Karnataka,4 while referring to its observations made in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) held as follows:
"24. This Court has clearly held that, a stage has come where applications under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the 4 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 181 9 complainant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
25. This Court further held that, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also verify the veracity of the allegations. The Court has noted that, applications under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. are filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility only to harass certain persons.
26. This Court has further held that, prior to the filing of a petition under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C., there have to be applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr. P.C. This Court emphasises the necessity to file an affidavit so that the persons making the application should be conscious and not make false affidavit. With such a requirement, the persons would be deterred from causally invoking authority of the Magistrate, under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. Inasmuch as if the affidavit is found to be false, the person would be liable for prosecution in accordance with law."
(emphasis supplied)
13. On the other hand, Section 175 BNSS with certain additions, corresponds to Section 156 of Cr.P.C. dealing with police officer's power to investigate cognizable case.
Cr.P.C. BNSS Section 156 - Police officer's Section 175 - Police officer's power to investigate cognizable power to investigate cognizable case. case.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered (3) Any Magistrate empowered under under section 190 may order such section 210 may, after considering an investigation as above- the application supported by an 10 mentioned. affidavit made under sub-section (4) of section 173, and after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as above-mentioned.
(4) Any Magistrate empowered under section 210, may, upon receiving a complaint against a public servant arising in course of the discharge of his official duties, order investigation, subject to--
(a) receiving a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to him;
and
(b) after consideration of the assertions made by the public servant as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged.
(emphasis added)
14. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. merely empowered any Magistrate competent to take cognizance under Section 190 to order investigation in a cognizable case without prescribing any pre-requisite conditions. However, Section 175(3) BNSS restructures this by introducing certain conditions for its exercise. Now, under Section 175 (3) BNSS, the Magistrate may order investigation only after considering an application supported by an affidavit filed pursuant to Section 173(4) BNSS, and on conducting such inquiry as deemed necessary, and taking into account the submissions made by the police officer concerned.
11
15. Importantly, Section 175(4) BNSS introduces a new safeguard in complaints involving public servants. Where a complaint is made alleging commission of a cognizable offence by a public servant arising in the course of discharge of official duties, the Magistrate is restrained from ordering investigation unless two conditions are fulfilled: first, receipt of a report from a superior officer detailing the facts and circumstances of the incident; and second, consideration of the explanation or assertions made by the public servant regarding the situation leading to the alleged occurrence. This provision balances the need for accountability with protection against vexatious prosecution of public officials for acts done in official capacity.
16. In the context of Cr.P.C., it is relevant to refer to Ram Babu Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. and Others5, wherein a Full Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court examined the scope and manner of exercise of power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was held that an application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., even if it merely prays for registration of an FIR and investigation, it can be treated as a complaint as per Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., provided the averments disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Hon'ble High Court clarified that the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is a pre-cognizance power, distinct from the power to take cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and a Magistrate is not bound to mechanically direct investigation in every case, but has to ascertain whether the matter requires police investigation or whether it should proceed as a complaint case 5 2001 ALJ 1587 (Allahabad--Full Bench) 12 under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. The Full Bench cautioned against passing routine or cryptic orders such as "register and investigate" without indicating application of mind, as such mechanical exercise of power is impermissible.
17. As discussed, the power exercised by a Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS is pari materia with the power under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., and therefore the principles laid down in Ram Babu Gupta (supra), still hold relevance.
18. Further, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in V. Harinath v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 6, arising in relation to the same de facto complainant, having referred to the settled position of law in Priyanka Srivastava (supra), held as follows;
"8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the learned Magistrate mechanically forwarded the case for investigation without properly applying mind and passed a cryptic order as follows:
"Complainant present.
Heard complainant.
Perused the records, sworn statement and connected papers. Prima facie offence is made out against the accused. Hence the complaint is forwarded to Station House Office, Anantapuramu IV Town Police Station U/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C with a direction register and investigate the case and submit report by 03.11.2023."6 CRLP 8278/2023 13
9. In view of the above proposition of law, order passed by the learned Magistrate in the present case suffers from illegality and is liable to be set aside."
19. In Om Prakash Ambadkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that Magistrates must exercise caution and discretion while invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which is not to be treated as a routine remedy, by taking note of the changes introduced under Section 175 (3) BNSS, as follows;
"31. A comparison of Section 175(3) of the BNSS with Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. indicates three prominent changes that have been introduced by the enactment of BNSS as follows:
a. First, the requirement of making an application to the Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in charge of a police station to lodge the FIR has been made mandatory, and the applicant making an application under Section 175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while making the application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3).
b. Secondly, the Magistrate has been empowered to conduct such enquiry as he deems necessary before making an order directing registration of FIR.
c. Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to consider the submissions of the officer in charge of the police 7 2025 SCC OnLine SC 238 14 station as regards the refusal to register an FIR before issuing any directions under Section 175(3).
****
34. In light of the judicial interpretation and evolution of Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. by various decisions of this Court as discussed above, it becomes clear that the changes introduced by Section 175(3) of the BNSS to the existing scheme of Section 156(3) merely codify the procedural practices and safeguards which have been introduced by judicial decisions aimed at curbing the misuse of invocation of powers of a Magistrate by unscrupulous litigants for achieving ulterior motives.
35. Further, by requiring the Magistrate to consider the submissions made by the concerned police officer before proceeding to issue directions under Section 175(3), BNSS has affixed greater accountability on the police officer responsible for registering FIRs under Section 173.
Mandating the Magistrate to consider the submissions of the concerned police officer also ensures that the Magistrate applies his mind judicially while considering both the complaint and the submissions of the police officer thereby ensuring that the requirement of passing reasoned orders is complied with in a more effective and comprehensive manner."
(emphasis supplied) 15
20. In Namrata v. The State of Maharashtra,8 a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court observed in the following manner on exercise of power under Section 175 BNSS;
"30. The Courts are not expected to act as passive transmitters of information, but must carefully examine whether an investigation by the State Agency is genuinely warranted. In that vein, the Magistrate must not act as a mere conduit for forwarding complaints to the police."
(emphasis supplied)
21. In the present case, while purporting to exercise jurisdiction under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the learned Special Judge, who is a District Judge and occupies the highest rank of the trial judiciary, was required, as a condition precedent, to satisfy himself with regard to due compliance with the mandatory requirements prescribed under Sections 173(1) and 173(4) of the BNSS. The learned Special Judge was further obligated to consider the submissions of the concerned police authorities, if any, and to record reasons reflecting conscious and independent application of judicial mind before directing investigation.
22. The statutory scheme envisages that a Special Judge of District Judge rank functions as a safeguard at the threshold of the criminal process, ensuring that the coercive machinery of criminal law is not set in motion in a routine or mechanical manner. However, in the instant case, the learned 8 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4235 16 Special Judge proceeded to forward the complaint for investigation without adverting to, examining, or recording satisfaction regarding the fulfillment of the aforesaid statutory prerequisites.
23. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan9 recording of reasons is intended to serve the wider principle of justice as it ensures that the discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. Casual, cryptic and routine exercise of power vested on the Special Judge / Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS would thus be in transgression of law.
24. Further, procedural safeguard applicable to public servants acting in the discharge of their official duties are consciously added by introduction of Section 175 (4) BNSS. Therefore, an order directing investigation under Section 175 (3) BNSS can be passed only after the Special Judge receives a report from the superior officer of the concerned public servants, setting out the facts and circumstances of the alleged incident and the assertions of the said public servants. This requirement is intended to shield public servants from unwarranted prosecution. It cannot be treated as a mere formality. The impugned order is completely silent on the aspect of Section 175 (4) BNSS.
25. A mechanical direction, passed in a routine manner as if acting as a mere post office, is in direct contravention of settled law in Om Prakash 9 (2010) 9 SCC 496 17 Ambadkar (supra) and the express provision of law. It can also be equated to a blind reference to a surgery for a wound which can be cured with a mere bandage. This omission also directly violates the settled proposition of law that where the law prescribes that a thing shall be done in a particular manner, it must be done strictly in that manner and in no other, as reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhananjaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka.10 Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order warrants interference as it falls foul on the touchstone of settled principles of law on the point.
26. In addition, this Court also takes serious note of the pleadings made by the Respondent No.3 in the counter affidavit and cautions her. The contents of the counter affidavit are very unclear and incoherent. It is pertinent to mention that, Respondent No.3 has also filed similar complaint in C.F.No.277 of 2025 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu against a Police Personnel, which is the subject matter of Crl.P.No.9676 of 2025 before this Court. The said petition was allowed by this Court by making similar observations as mentioned in this petition.
27. Before parting with the instant case, this Court finds it appropriate to summarise the governing principles to applications under Section 175(3) BNSS, as culled out from the statutory provisions and precedents as follows; 10
2001 (4) SCC 9 18 a. The power under Section 175(3) BNSS is extraordinary and pre- cognizance in nature. It is not to be exercised mechanically, routinely, or as a matter of course. Invocation of this provision entails serious consequences and therefore demands cautious and judicious exercise. b. Before invoking Section 175(3) BNSS, the Special Judge / Magistrate must verify and record satisfaction that the complainant has exhausted the remedies under Sections 173(1) and 173(4) BNSS. In terms of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava (supra), now statutorily incorporated under the BNSS, every application under Section 175(3) BNSS must be supported by a sworn affidavit confirming compliance with Sections 173(1) and 173(4) BNSS. c. The Special Judge / Magistrate is empowered to conduct such inquiry as deemed necessary prior to directing investigation. Section 175(3) BNSS mandates that prior to directing registration of an FIR or investigation, the Special Judge / Magistrate shall consider the submissions made by the concerned police officer, if any. d. In complaints against public servants arising out of acts allegedly committed in the discharge of official duties, the Special Judge / Magistrate shall strictly comply with Section 175(4) BNSS i.e., receipt of report by officer superior to him regarding facts of incident and consideration of assertions by said public servant as regards the situation that led to the occurrence of the alleged incident. e. The Special Judge / Magistrate shall not act as a mere conduit or forwarding authority. An independent judicial assessment must be undertaken to determine whether police investigation is genuinely warranted. Where allegations are simple and can be adjudicated by recording evidence, the Special Judge / Magistrate should proceed as a complaint case. Reference to police investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS is justified in cases involving complex facts, technical issues, 19 discovery of evidence, or need for specialized investigative machinery of the State.
f. Casual, cryptic, or routine orders stating "register and investigate"
amount to transgression of law. Any order of reference under Section 175 (3) BNSS must demonstrate objective and rational consideration of relevant factors.
g. Delay, conduct of the complainant and other indicators of mala fide should be duly considered. The Special Judge / Magistrate must consciously ensure that the criminal process is not used as a tool of harassment, coercion, or vengeance, and that the power under Section 175(3) BNSS is invoked only where ends of justice so demand.
RESULT IN THE CASE
28. In the case at hand, the order of reference for investigation does not indicate following of any of the procedure as necessary in law. In that view of the matter, the order referring the matter for investigation cannot be sustained and the matter deserves fresh consideration in light of the settled principles.
29. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.06.2025 passed in C.F.No.736 of 2025 by the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Special Court for fresh consideration of the private complaint filed by the Respondent No.3 under Section 175 (3) BNSS for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law.
20
30. It is clarified that the observations made in this order shall not influence the fresh consideration of the application of Respondent No.3 and the same shall be dealt based on its own merits.
31. The Registry is directed to circulate this order to all the Unit Heads of the State, who would in turn circulate the same to the respective Courts in their Units for strict adherence of the procedure stipulated under Section 175(3) BNSS and the precedents.
32. A copy of this order also be forwarded to the Director, Andhra Pradesh Judicial Academy for sensitization of the trainee Judicial Officers on the summed-up principles. While extensive training programmes have been conducted on the newly enacted criminal laws trio i.e., the BNS, BNSS and BSA across the State, effective transition is very much important. In the present case, Section 175 (3) BNSS is unambiguous, and the judicial precedents are also clear. In such a situation, there is no scope for mechanical exercise of power or casual deviation from statutory requirements. The Judicial Academy must be like a proactive guiding force through continuous emphasis on procedural clarity and correcting deviations when noticed. Beyond this institutional sensitisation, a conscious individual commitment on the part of Judicial Officers to remain updated with the law is expected, as it is essential to effectively serve the cause of justice.
________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:05.01.2026 Dinesh 21 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.8007 of 2025 Dt.05.01.2026 Dinesh