Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 14214
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
N. HARINATH, J
DAYAM PEDA RANGA RAO – Appellant
Versus
THE JOINT DIRECTOR, (RAYALASEERNA) ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, A.P – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3955, 197, 433, 1376, 2211, 2253, 2451, 3808, 4308 and 4831 of 2021, 4469, 5844, 5958, 5985 of 2020 and 2066 of 2023 | CRLP.No. 3955/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: GHANTA SRIDHAR
For the Respondents: S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB
An FIR registered by a non-notified police station under the Code of Criminal Procedure is void ab initio, and subsequent notifications do not retroactively validate earlier registrations.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 2(s) - Quashing of FIRs - The petitioners challenged the registration of criminal cases by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on grounds of lack of authority as the Central Investigation Unit was not notified as a police station under the law - The court held that registration of FIRs by a non-notified police station is void ab initio and quashed the cases. (Paras 1-44)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Notifications - It was established that the notification of the CIU as a police station post-dated the registration of the FIRs, rendering the prior registrations unlawful. (Paras 33-44)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners contended that criminal cases against them for disproportionate assets were registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau’s CIU, which was not a recognized police station under the applicable legal definitions at the time of registration. The petitioners argued that the FIRs were invalid leading to their wrongful implication. (Paras 1-19)
Findings of Court:
The Court found that since the necessary notifications had not been made before the registration of FIRs, all cases against the petitioners were quashed as they were void ab initio. (Paras 43-44)
Issues: The primary issues were whether the Central Investigation Unit was a proper police station for the purposes of registration of FIRs and the implications of the subsequent notification declaring it a police station. (Paras 1-12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that only those police stations duly notified can register FIRs as the definition provided under Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be strictly adhered to; the notifications that came after the registration cannot retroactively validate those FIRs. (Paras 33-44)
Result: All crimes registered prior to the notification of CIU as a police station were quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. concept of fir registration against unnotified police station. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. authorization proceedings for registering cases under pc act. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. definition and significance of police station notification. (Para 5 , 6 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. voidability of unnotified police station registrations. (Para 13 , 39 , 40) |
| 5. arguments on jurisdictional integrity post-state bifurcation. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. quashing of cases due to timing of station notification. (Para 42 , 43 , 44) |
COMMON ORDER :
1. Criminal petition No.3955 of 2021 is taken up as the lead case in the batch of petitions filed seeking quash of crimes registered by Inspector of Police, Central Investigation Unit (CIU), ACB, Vijayawada for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The primary ground for seeking quash of the crimes is that Government has not notified Central Investigation Unit (CIU), ACB, Vijayawada as a Police Station under Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C., as on the date of registration of crimes.
2. This Court while admitting the matters directed the investigating officer not to file charge sheet until further orders from the Court. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Joint Director, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada issued authorization proceedings to the Inspector of Police CIU, ACB, AP, Vijayawada to register a case against the petitioners under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “PC Act”).
3. On the strength of the authorization proceedings of the Joint Director, the inspector of Police, CIU, ACB, AP, Vijayawada registered the following cases ;
| S. No. | CRLP.Nos. | Authorization Details | Crime Number | Section of Law | Nature of offence |
| 1. | 3955 of 2021 | No.19/RCA- CIU/2016, dt. 19.10.2016 | 15/RCA-CIU- ACB/2016, dt.22.10.2016 | 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of PC Act | Disproportionate assets |
| 2. | 4308 of 2021 | No.10/RCA/JD (R)/2020 dt. 05.03.2020 | 2/RCA-CIU- ACB/2020, dt.09.03.2020 | 13(1)(b) of PC Act | Disproportionate assets |
| 3. | 3808 of 2021 | No.11/JD(R)- ACB/20158, dt. 27.10.2018 | 06/RCA-CIU- ACB/2018, dt.01.11.2018 | 13(1)(b) read 13(2) o f the PC ACt | Disproportionate assets |
| 4. | 2451 of 2021 | No.20/JD(R)- ACB/2017, dt.15.11.2017 | 15/RCA-CIU- ACB/2017, dt.16.11.2017 | 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the PC Act | Disproportionate assets |
| 5. | 2253 of 2021 | No.20/JD(R)- ACB/2017, dt.15.11.2017 | 15/RCA-CIU- ACB/2017, dt.16.11.2017 | 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the PC Act | Disproportionate assets |
| 6. | 2211 of 2021 | No.20/JD(R)- ACB/2017, dt.15.11.2017 | 15/RCA-CIU- ACB/2017, dt.16.11.2017 | 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the PC Act | Disproportionate assets |
| 7. | 1376 of 2021 | No.08/JD(R)- ACB/2018, dt.27.12.2018 | 08/RCA-CIU- ACB/2018, dt.28.12.2018 | 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the PC Act | Disproportionate assets |
| 8. | 433 of 2021 | No.17/JD(R)- ACB/2017, dt.14.03.2017 | 03/RCA-CIU- ACB/2017, dt.16.03.2017 | 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the PC Act | Disproportionate assets |
| 9. | 2066 of 2023 | No.01/RCA/CI U/2017 dt.03.010.2017 | 01/2017, dt.04.01.2017 | 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the PC Act | Disproportionate assets |
| 10. | 4831 of 2021 | No.19/RCA- JD/(R)/2017, dt.17.01.2017 | 10/RCT-ACB- CIU/2017, dt.19.09.2017 | 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the PC Act | Disproportionate assets |
| 11. | 5958 of 2020 | NO.136/RCA- CIU/2016 - S.16, dt.17.01.2017 | 16/2016, dt.02.11.2016 | 13(2)read with 13(1)(e) of the PC Act | Disproportionate assets |
| 12. | 4469 of 2020 | No.10/JD(R)- ACB/2017, Dt.16.06.2017 | 08/RCA-CIU- ACB/2017, dt.17.06.2017 | 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of PC Act | Disproportionate assets |
| 13. | 5844 of 2020 | 11/JD(R)- ACB/2017, dt.21.06.2017 | 09/RCA-CIU- ACB/2017, dt.21.06.2017 | 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of PC Act | Disproportionate assets |
| 14. | 5985 of 2020 | 7/JD(R)- ACB/2017, dt.04.05.2017 | 05/RCA-CIU- ACB/2017, dt.05.05.2017 | 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of PC Act | Disproportionate assets |
| 15. | 197 of 2021 | 03/JD(R) ACB/2019, dt.19.02.2019 | 01/RCA-CIU- ACB/2019, dt.19.02.2019 | 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of PC Act | Disproportionate assets |
4. Sri.G.Rama Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are targeted and cases alleging possession of assets di
