Manchu Mohan Babu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Bench: VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Andhra Pradesh judgment dated 2025-01-02. Manchu Mohan Babu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 7446 and 7206 OF 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7446 OF 2022 Between: 1. Manchu Mohan Babu, Aged about 75 years, S/0 M. Narayana Swamy Naidu, Occ Chairperson, Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions, R/o Plot No 6, Road No 1, Film Nagar, Jublee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana State 2. Manchu Vishnu Vardhan Babu, Aged about 43 years, S/0 Manchu Mohan Babu, Occ CEO, Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions, R/o Plot No 6, Road No 1, Film Nagar, Jublee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 3. Manchu Manoj Kumar, Aged about 39 years, S/0 Manchu Mohan Babu, Occ CEO, Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions R/o Plot No 6, Road State. No 1, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana ... Petitioner/Accused Nos. 1 to 3 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by S. H. O, Chandragiri P. S.
, Tirupati Urban, Rep. Through the Public Prosecutor, State of Andhra Pradesh, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. K. Hemalatha, Aged about 49 years, Occ Mandal Parishad Development Officer, MCC Team -IV, Mandal Praja Parishad, Chandragiri, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. ... Respondents/Complainant that in the Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C praying Criminal Petition, circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of of 2021, on the the High Court may be pleased to quash the C. C. No. 1015 Andhra Pradesh. file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, LA. NO: 1 OF 2022 the Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C praying that in Criminal Petition, circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of further proceedings, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all in C. C. No.
1015 of including presence/ appearance of the Petitioner herein Judge, Tirupati, Andhra 2021, on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Pradesh, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7206 OF 2022 Between: Naidu, 1. K. Thulasi Naidu, Aged about 53 years, S/o Late Chinnamma R/o 10-56-6, Occ Administrative Officer, Sri Vidyaniketan Pradesh SreeSainadhaNagar, Arepalle, Rangampet, Chittoor, Andhra 517102. Relations Officer, 2. Raavuru Satheesh, Aged about 35 years, Occ Public Pradesh 524421. Sri Vidyaniketan, R/o Perimidi Post, Nellore, Andhra ... Petitioner/Accused Nos. 4& 5 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by S. H. O, Chandragiri P. S. , State of Andhra Tirupati Urban, Rep. Through the Public Prosecutor, Pradesh, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. Occ Mandal Parishad 2. K. Hemalatha, Aged about 49 years -IV, Mandal Praja Parishad, Development Officer, MCC Team Chandragiri, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. ...
Respondents/Complainant that in the Section 482 of Cr. P. C praying Petition under Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, circumstances stated in the Quash the C. C. No. 1015 of 2021, on the the High Court may be pleased to Civil Judge, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, in the file of the IV Additional Junior inherent jurisdiction under interest of equity and justice while exercising its Section 482 of Cr. P. C. I A. NO: 2 OF 2022 that in the Section 482 of Cr. P. C praying Petition under Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition circumstances stated in the further proceedings, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all of the Petitioner herein in C. C. No. 1015 of including presence/ appearance Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Andhra 2021, on the file of the IV Pradesh, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition.
the for hearing, upon perusing These Petitions coming on Petition and upon hearing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Advocate for the Petitioners in both arguments of Sri N Ashwani Kumar behalf of the Respondent No. 1 the petitions and the Public Prosecutor on V Vinod Reddy, Advocate for the for both the petitions and of Sri ZP MPDO GP in both the No. 2, Standing Counsel for Respondent petitions. The Court made the following; APHC010496712022 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3C THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA r. RIMINAL PETITION NOs: 7446 AND 7206 OF 2022 Criminal Petition No-7446 of 2022: ^TmANCHU MOHAN BABU„ AGED SR\ EPiP" irs h«d: babu. aged about EDUCATION>S. ^INSTITUT1o'nS, R/O plot no 6, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE. ^^^^^^^^^^g^ AND 1 THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED By S. HA PRADESH. ...
RESP0NDENT/C0MPLAINANT(S): Criminal Petition Nn-7206 of 2022: Between: AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/0 LATE 1. K. THULASI NAIDU, occ ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SRI CHINNAMMA NAIDU SREESAINADHANAGAR, AREPALLE, VIDYANIKETAN, R/O 10-56-6. m7in9 RANGAMPET, chittoor, andhra^p^desh, 2. RAAVURU SATHEESH VIDYANIKETAN, R/0 PERIMIDI POST relations officer, SRI NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH 524421. p^^,^,Q^£pj/AcCUSED(S) AND represented by s. h. o, 1 THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP through the HIGH ""CHANDRAGJR, oTaNDHRA PRADESH, COURT OF SZ^A^yAMAKl. 2. K HEMALATHA, ^GED ABOUT 4 H mANDAL S^^ARISH^D^SAa CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ... RESP0NDENT/C0N1PLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. N ASHWANl KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) K REDDY (SC FOR ZP MPDO GP) 2. VVINOD The Court made the following: rrtMMQN ORDE R: 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, The instant petitions under Section Nos.
1 to 3 and 4 & 5 filed by the Petitioners/Accused 1973^ have been them in C. C. No. 1015 respectively seeking ot quash the proceedings against Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati for the file of the Court of IV of 2021 on 341 and 171-F read with 34 of the offences punishable under Sections 290 ^ and Section 34 of Police Act, 1861. the Indian Penal Code, 1860 counsel for the Petitioners, Sri 2. Heard Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned Sri V. Vinod K. Reddy, learned learned counsel representing G. R. Sudhakar Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 and Standing No. 1. Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent 1 for short ‘Cr. P. C 2 for short ‘I. P. C. ’ Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 5 would submit 3. Learned counsel for the made several representations to the Government that Petitioner/Accused No. 1 were not amount for their students and the same for reimbursement conducted a peaceful rally.
considered and in that regard, the Petitioners submit that, the allegations leveled against the Learned counsel would further offences alleged against them. Learned counsel Petitioners do not attract the Code of Conduct cannot be attributed to the would further submit that. Model 2019 and were Petitioners , who were not contesting in the Assembly Election, finally submit that the not aiding any politicai party. Learned counsel would do not constitute any offence allegations leveled against the Petitioners quashment of the proceedings against the against them. Hence, prayed for learned counsel has placed reliance Petitioners. In support of his contention Anita Thakur & Others of the Hon’ble Apex Court in on the judgments and Kashmir & Others^ this Court in The Vs. Government of Jammu o Parirakshana Samithi of A. P. , and Others Vs. The State Amaravathi District Co-operative Milk A. P * and High Court of Gujarat in Mehsana Election Officer, Mehsana & Limited Vs.
The District Producers Union others®. Respondent No. 2 would submit that the 4. Per contra, learned counsel for entire incident was videographed and there are specific overt acts attributed would further submit that the public against the Petitioners. Learned counsel Petitioners for four hours. It is also and the vehicles were restrained by the ^ (2016) 15 see 525 MANU/AP/1450/2021 5 MANU/GJ/0638/2019 the Petitioners which submitted that there are specific allegations against Court cannot conduct mini would attract the alleged offences and as such, this 482 of the Cr. P. C. , and trial, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the arguments advanced by the leaned counsel for Respondent No. 2. representing both 6.
Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel is: the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination of the Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment 5 in proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to Additional C. C. No. 1015 of 2021 on the file of the Court of IV Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati? the Code envisages 7. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that or affected so as to that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited to any order under the make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect Court or, otherwise (iii) to Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any jurisdiction is not secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 It must exercise its functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. and do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts powers to for compelling circumstances of the case.
These powers must be invoked are against reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 8. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana torch in the and others v. Bhajanlal and others^ is considered as the guiding 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt application of Section 482. At Paras out as follows; vanous ''e'evan' “102.
In the backdrop of the interpretation of the provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of iaw enunciated by this Court in a series or the inherent exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracjed and reproduced above, we give the following categones either to of illustration wherein such power could be exercised to secure the prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise down any ^nds of justice, though it may not be possible to lay and mflexible precise clearly defined and sufifciently channelised list of mynad guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. repod or the (1) Where the allegations made in the first information and Zrnplaint, even if they are taken at their face value y accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute offence or make out a case against the accused.
report and other (2) Where the allegations in the first information a materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do^ not disclose cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by under Section 156(1) of the Code f the ° Code. Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of (3) Where the uncontroveded allegations J''! complaint and the evidence collected m support of out not disclose the commission of any offence and make case against the accused. e ^ aograzaWe (4) Where, the allegations In the FIR do not constitu offence but constitute only a non-cognizable J’® investigation is permitted by a P°"'®® 5" the .. g a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of are so (5)^Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint which no ^ absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of is prudent pe^ can ever reach a just conclusion that there sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6 AIR 1992 SC 604 (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the which a provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103.
We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. ” (emphasis supplied) 9. In the case on hand, the case of the prosecution is that, on 22. 03. 2019 at about 8. 30 a. m.. Petitioner No. l/Accused No. 1, who is the Chairman of Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions, A. Rangampet Village, Chandragiri Mandal along with Petitioners/Accused Nos.
2 to 5, having secured the presence of their staff and students, congregated together, conducted a rally commencing from Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions towards Tirupati - Madanapalli Road, by raising slogans vociferously against the-then Ruling Government of Andhra Pradesh for not granting Students’ Fee Reimbursement to their educational institutions. They also conducted a dharna from 8. 30 a. m. , to 12. 30 p. m. , by raising slogans and thereby caused obstruction to the free flow of traffic, inconvenience, annoyance and risk of passengers knowing fully well that the Model Code of Conduct issued by the Election Commission of India and Prohibitory Orders under Section 30 of 'X Police Act, were in force. On receipt of the information about the said rally r and Dharna, Respondent No.
2, being Mandal Parishad Development Officer and Incharge of Model Code of Conduct Team-IV, Chandragiri Assembly Constituency along with her staff rushed to the spot and got videographed the same and lodged a report with the Police. Based on the said report a case in Petitioners for the Crime No. 102 of 2019 has been registered against the alleged offences. 10. As seen from the contents of the charge sheet, there are specific allegations leveled against the Petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. Though it is the contention of the Petitioners that they have conducted a peaceful rally, they have not restrained the public and a false case has been foisted against them, it is submitted by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 that the said incident was videographed. However, the said video has not been placed before this Court.
When it is alleged about the view that the same has to be availability of the videograph, this Court is of the cannot conduct a mini proved during trial before the trial Court. This Court trial while deciding the petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioners are not helpful to the case of the Petitioners, since the facts and circumstances of the said cases are different from the present case. There are no tenable grounds to quash the Since there are factual proceedings against the Petitioners, at this stage. aspects to be decided during evidence before the trial Court, at this stage, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial while deciding the petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. The case is not falling under any of the guidelines mentioned in Bhajanlal’s case (supra).
It is a matter of trial for disclosing the truth or and there are no otherwise of the allegations leveled against the Petitioners merits for quashment of the proceedings against them and hence, the petitions deserve dismissal. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition Nos. 7446 and 7206 of 2022 are hereby dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. The Station House Officer, Chandragiri P. S. , Tirupati Urban, Chittoor District. 3. One CC to Sri. N. Ashwani Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. V. Vinod Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Andhra Pradesh at 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Amaravathi [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies Stu sree HIGH COURT DATED; 02/01/2025 COMMON ORDER CRLP. Nos. 7446 and 7206 of 2022 ^ofanos^ S < 2 mar 2025 Current ueciion DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS
Source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.