Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/4034/2026 of Sri Chintamaneni Sri Ranga Satish Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 6 May 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: 1. SRI CHINTAMANENI SRI RANGA SATISH, ,S/O. VISWANADHARAO, AGED 53,R/O.
APHC010253932026
IN THE H
(
THURSDA
TWO T
THE HONOURABLE DR
CRIMIN
Between:
1. SRI
CHINTAMAN
VISWANADHARAO,
VILLAGE,PEDAVEG
2. SRI CHINTAMANEN
AGED
63,R/O.
OFFICE,DUGGIRALA
3. SRI MUWA RAJESH
D. NO. 4-112, DUGG
4. SRI KOMMA PRAS
D.NO. 1-129 ,JOSE
MANDAL- 534450.
5. SRI MAKKELLI VE
49,R/O. DUGGIRALA
6. SRI GUNJU MADH
DUGGIRALA VILLAG
7. SMT MANDEM MA
56,R/O.
D.NO.
VILLAGE,PEDAVEG
8. SRI BITRU HARI, ,
RAMALAYAM, YAD
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
AY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY
THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
R JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PR
NAL PETITION NO: 4034/2026
NENI
SRI
RANGA
SATISH
AGED
53,R/O.
DU
GI MANDAL- 534450.
NI RAMA KRISHNA, ,S/O.LAKSHMINA
D.
NO.
3-88,
NEAR
PAN
A VILLAGE,PEDAVEGI MANDAL- 5344
H, ,S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO. AGE
GIRALA VILLAGEPEDAVEGI MANDAL-
SAD, ,S/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED
EPH NAGAR,DUGGIRALA VILLAGE,P
NKATESWARA RAO, ,S/O. VEERAIA
A VILLAGE,PEDAVEGI MANDAL- 53445
HU, ,S/O. ISMAIL SEETAYYA, AGED
GE,PEDAVEGI MANDAL- 534450.
ARIYAMMA, , A9W/O. BHUSHANAM
3-57/4,
NEAR
CSI
CHURCH,DU
GI MANDAL- 534450
S/O. VENKATACHALAM, AGED 86,RY
AVA BAZAR,DUGGIRALA VILLAGE,P
RATAPA
,
,S/O.
UGGIRALA
ARAYANA,
NCHAYAT
450.
ED 40,R/O.
534450.
D 40,R/O.
PEDAVEGI
AH, AGED
D 45,R/O.
M, AGED
UGGIRALA
YO. NEAR
PEDAVEGI
9. SMT VITALA VARA LAKSHMI, ,W/O. RANGARAO, AGED 37,R/O.
DUGGIRALA VILLAGE,PEDAVEGI MANDAL- 534450.
10. SMT MAKKELLI MARTHAMMA, ,W/O. VENKATESWARA RAO.
AGED 56,R/O. DUGGIRALA VILLAGE,PEDAVEGI MANDAL- 534450.
11. SMT TANGELLA MANGAMMA, W/O. GANGADHARA RAO. AGED
47,R/O. D.NO. 4-19, DUGGIRALA VILLAGE,PEDAVEGI MANDAL- 534450
12. SMT MANDEM KUMARI, W/O. SOLMAN RAJU, AGED 43,R/O. D.NO.
2-105, MALAPALLI,DUGGIRALA VILLAGE,PEDAVEGI MANDAL- 534450
13. SRI KATIKALA JEEVAN KUMAR, S/O. DEVA KRUPAVAR, AGED
26,R/O. DUGGIRALA VILLAGE,PEDAVEGI MANDAL- 534450.
14. SRI KANCHERLA KISHORE, S/O. RAJULU, AGED 49,R/O. D.NO. 1- 78, JOSEPH NAGAR,DUGGIRALA VILLAGE,PEDAVEGI MANDAL-
15. SRI CHOTUMALLA PRANAY BABU, ,S/O. SANTAYYA, AGED
32,R/O. D.NO. 3-97, MALLAPALLI,DUGGIRALA VILLAGE,PEDAVEGI
MANDAL- 534450.
16. SRI CHINNAM DEVADAS ALIAS DASU, ,S/O. SOBHANADRI, AGED
62,R/O.
D.NO.
1-26,
JOSEPH
NAGAR,DUGGIRALA
VILLAGE,PEDAVEGI MANDAL- 534450
17. SRI MANDEM PRASAD, ,S/O. DEVADANAM, AGED 52,R/O. D.NO.
1-48, DUGGIRALA VILLAGE,PEDAVEGI MANDAL- 534450.
18. SRI PARVATHANENI RAMA KRISHNA NANI, S/O. VENKATESWARA
RAO, AGED 34,R/O. DUGGIRALA VILLAGE,PEDAVEGI MANDAL-
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,S.H.O. ELURU III TOWN
PSREP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH,AMARAVATI.
2. Y U M SURYA KUMAR, ,S/O. VENKATA VARA PRASAD, AGED
37,PANCHAYATSECRETARY,R/O. DUGGIRALA VILLAGE,PEDAVEGI
MANDAL - 534 450.
...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 of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to quash the charge sheet in C.C.
No. 147 of 2024 of Hon'ble II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Eluru, in so far as the petitioner herein/A2 to A5 and A7 to A20 are concerned and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026
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 pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of the charge sheet in C.C.No. 147 of 2024 of Hon'ble II Additional Judicial I
Class Magistrate, Eluru, and to pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2026
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 Pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.
147 of 2024 of Hon'ble II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Eluru, in so far as the petitioner herein/A2 to A5 and A7 to A20 are concerned, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1.BOPPANA POOJA SREE CHOWDARY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4034/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A.2 to A.5 and A.7 to A.20 in C.C. No.147 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 341 r/w 149, 188, 269, 270, 271 IPC and Section 51 of Disaster Management Act, 2005.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 01.05.2020 between 09.00 and 9.20 a.m., under the leadership of A.1 all the accused formed unlawful assembly and caused annoyance to the public tranquility by wrongful restraint on the road before Panchayat office of Duggirala village protesting to the delay in MGNREGS scheme by disobeying the prohibitory orders issued by the District Collector, West Godavari, Eluru and lock down orders issued by Government in order to prevent the Spread of Epidemic Covid-19, thereby the accused committed the offence.
3. Heard Ms.B.Pooja Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioners/A.2 to A.5 and A.7 to A.20 and Mrs. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present crime due to political reasons and that the entire prosecution is a result of mala fide exercise of power by the investigating agency.
It is further submitted that the complaint does not disclose the identity of the petitioners and that the charge sheet is conspicuously silent as to how the petitioners was identified during the course of investigation. Learned counsel would submit that no witness has specifically stated about the participation of the petitioners in the alleged incident nor has any overt act been attributed to him.
Learned counsel would further submit that the investigation suffers from serious infirmities and contradictions. It is contended that the investigating officer mechanically proceeded with the investigation without collecting legally admissible evidence and that the entire investigation appears to be a mere table exercise. Learned counsel further submits that, the alleged identification of the petitioners during investigation is only an improvement over the original version given in the complaint.
It is further argued that except vague and omnibus allegations, there is absolutely no prima facie material against the petitioners. The essential ingredients constituting the offences punishable under Sections 341, 188, 269, 270, 271 IPC and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act are absent insofar as the petitioners is concerned.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the case against Accused No.1 was already quashed in this crime by this Court vide Order dated 06.05.2026 in Crl.P.No.4021 of 2026 and the A.2 to A.5 and A.7 to A.20 is also on the same footing as of Accused No.1, as such, prayed to allow the criminal petition.
Learned counsel would submit that continuation of criminal proceedings in the absence of prima facie material amounts to abuse of process of Court and therefore the proceedings are liable to be quashed by exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that the investigation was conducted strictly in accordance with law and that the charge sheet was filed on the basis of material collected during investigation. It is submitted that there exists prima facie material showing the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged incident and that the allegations in the charge sheet disclose commission of cognizable offences.
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further contend that the grounds urged by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact and that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot conduct a roving enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. It is argued that contradictions, inconsistencies or alleged improvements in the statements of witnesses are matters to be adjudicated during trial after appreciation of evidence. It is further submitted that the plea of political dispute raised by the petitioner is a bald allegation unsupported by any material. Therefore, the Criminal Petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. The inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are intended to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. Though the power is wide, the same has to be exercised carefully, cautiously and in exceptional circumstances.
At the stage of considering a petition for quashment, the Court is required to examine whether the allegations contained in the complaint and the material collected during investigation, if accepted on their face value, constitute the offences alleged against the accused. However, where the allegations are inherently improbable, absurd, vague or where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law, the Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction.
7. In the case on hand, a careful perusal of the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant would show that the name of the petitioners is not specifically mentioned therein. The complaint contains only general allegations regarding formation of unlawful assembly and violation of lockdown restrictions. More importantly, the charge sheet does not disclose the basis on which the petitioners was identified during investigation. There is no material indicating as to who identified the petitioners or in what manner such identification was made. The prosecution has not placed any legally acceptable material demonstrating the presence and participation of the petitioners at the scene of offence. The alleged identification of the petitioners during investigation, without any supporting material, appears to be an improvement.
8. It is also evident that except making omnibus allegations against all the accused, the prosecution has failed to attribute any specific overt act to the petitioners. The charge sheet merely states that the petitioners along with others formed an unlawful assembly and obstructed the road while protesting regarding delay in implementation of the MGNREGS Scheme. Such bald and vague allegations, in the absence of specific material showing active participation of the petitioners, are insufficient to proceed against them in a criminal case.
9. Insofar as the offence under Section 341 IPC is concerned, there is no material demonstrating that the petitioners wrongfully restrained any particular person. Similarly, for attracting the offences under Sections 269, 270 and 271 IPC, the prosecution is required to establish negligent acts likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life and disobedience to quarantine rules. Except making a general allegation regarding violation of lockdown norms, no specific material is placed to show that the petitioners committed any act attracting the ingredients of the said offences. Likewise, for the offence under
Section 188 IPC, there must be material to show conscious disobedience of an order duly promulgated by a public servant resulting in obstruction, annoyance or injury. The prosecution has failed to place material establishing the requisite ingredients insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
10. The contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the contradictions and deficiencies pointed out by the petitioners are matters for trial cannot be accepted in the peculiar facts of the present case. The deficiencies pointed out are not mere contradictions touching upon appreciation of evidence; rather, they go to the very root of the prosecution case, particularly regarding the identity and involvement of the petitioners. In the absence of foundational material connecting the petitioners with the alleged offences, compelling them to undergo the rigours of criminal trial would amount to abuse of process of Court. However, where the material on record fails to disclose even a prima facie case against the accused, the Court would be justified in interdicting the criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon careful perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is unsustainable in law.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/ A.2 to A.5 and A.7 to A.20 in C.C.No.147 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, are hereby quashed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. ____________________________________________ DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Dated 07.05.2026 KKV
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4034/2026
Dated 07.05.2026 KKV