CRLP/5106/2025 of Boggavarapu Rahul Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 1 April 2026

COMMON ORDER:

The instant Criminal Petitions under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) have been filed by the Petitioners / Accused Nos.2, 7, 9 and 15 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.441 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama for the offences under Sections 353, 341 and 143 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 28.02.2017, a bus belonging to Divakar Travels met with an accident near Mundlapadu Crossroad, resulting in the death of ten persons, including the driver. After conducting the inquest and autopsy, the de facto complainant, along with others, was escorting an ambulance carrying one of the deceased bodies for the purpose of handing it over to the family members. At that time, the Petitioners and other Accused allegedly stopped the ambulance, stating that their leader, Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy, was on his way and requested them to wait until his arrival.

3. Heard Sri Veladi Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. The notice which was sent to Respondent No.2 was returned as refused.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the allegations levelled against the Petitioners are false and baseless. It is contended that the respondent-police have falsely implicated the Petitioners by adopting a pick and choose method, which is unknown to criminal jurisprudence. Learned counsel would further submit that the investigation is neither fair nor transparent and appears to be a mere table exercise. Material contradictions in the charge sheet, including discrepancies regarding preparation of a rough sketch, clearly demonstrate the arbitrary approach of the investigating agency. It is also contended that the police have improved their version during investigation by introducing facts not found in the complaint, particularly regarding identification of the Petitioners, which is an afterthought. Learned counsel would submit that there is absolutely no prima facie material against the Petitioners, as the charge sheet does not disclose as to who identified them, nor does it attribute any specific overt act. It is submitted that the implication of the Petitioners is politically motivated. It is further contended that the respondent police failed to establish the identity, role, or involvement of the Petitioners, and have not conducted the investigation in accordance with law. Even if the allegations are taken at face value, no offences are made out. The essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the allegations made by the Petitioners are untenable and contrary to the material placed on record. It is contended that the investigation has been conducted in a fair and lawful manner, and the charge sheet is filed based on credible evidence collected during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that the contentions regarding contradictions and alleged improvements are matters of trial and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings seeking quashment. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that the charge sheet clearly discloses prima facie material against the Petitioners, including their identification and involvement in the commission of the offence. At this stage, a meticulous examination of evidence is impermissible. It is also submitted that the plea of political motivation is bald and unsupported by any material. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. The power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. While exercising such power, this Court is required to examine whether the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during investigation, even if taken at face value, constitute the offences alleged.

7. In the present case, a keen perusal of the material on record reveals that the complaint does not disclose the names or identity of the Petitioners. The charge sheet also does not clearly indicate as to who identified the

Petitioners or the manner in which their identity was established. The alleged identification during the course of investigation, without any supporting material, appears to be an improvement over the version given in the complaint.

8. Further, no specific overt acts are attributed to the Petitioners except a vague and omnibus allegation that they, along with others, stopped the ambulance. Such general and bald allegations, in the absence of clear and cogent material, are insufficient to proceed against the Petitioners. The contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that these are matters for trial cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case, as the very foundation of the prosecution case against the Petitioners is lacking.

9. Insofar as the alleged contradictions and improvements are concerned, they go to the root of the matter, particularly when the identity and involvement of the Petitioners are not established even prima facie. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be sustained.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed, and the proceedings against the Petitioners / Accused Nos.2, 7, 9 and 15 in C.C.No.441 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama, are herby quashed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:02.04.2026 Dinesh

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 5106 & 10078 / 2025

Dt.02.04.2026

Dinesh