CRLP/4021/2026 of Sri Chintamaneni Prabhakar Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 5 May 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A.1 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 Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.1 and Mrs. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner and that the charge sheet is conspicuously silent as to how the petitioner was identified during the course of investigation. Learned counsel would submit that no witness has specifically stated about the participation of the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner. 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 petitioner is concerned.

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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner was identified during investigation. There is no material indicating as to who identified the petitioner or in what manner such identification was made. The prosecution has not placed any legally acceptable material demonstrating the presence and participation of the petitioner at the scene of offence. The alleged identification of the petitioner 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 petitioner. The charge sheet merely states that the petitioner 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 petitioner, are insufficient to proceed against him in a criminal case.

9. Insofar as the offence under Section 341 IPC is concerned, there is no material demonstrating that the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner. In the absence of foundational material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offences, compelling him 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 petitioner is unsustainable in law.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.1 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 06.05.2026 KKV

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4021/2026

Dated 06.05.2026 KKV