Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 5552
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J
P JAGADEESH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8007/2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Public Servants Liability
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Judicial accountability - The obligation to examine and verify claims before directing investigation and not allowing casual references to police investigation. (Paras 20, 28)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioners, police officials, challenged a learned Special Judge’s order referring a baseless private complaint for police investigation without adequate scrutiny and legal justification.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order is quashed due to legal non-compliance, mandating fresh consideration of the complaint while adhering to statutory requirements.
Issues: The necessity of conference prior to directing investigations against public officials and compliance with statutory guidelines on filing complaints.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court asserted the need for a rigorous process ensuring that lower courts do not act as mere conduits, thereby upholding the principles of procedural fairness and accountability.
Result: The petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: POSANI AKASH
For the Respondents: PARTY IN PERSON, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to complaint process against police officials. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. judicial awareness of complaint processing standards. (Para 7 , 10) |
| 3. importance of procedural rigor before investigations. (Para 17 , 21) |
| 4. quashing of mechanically decided investigation orders. (Para 28 , 29) |
ORDER
1. The instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, Hereinafter, referred to as BNSS , in short. is preferred by the Petitioners / Proposed Accused, seeking quashment of the docket order dated 30.06.2025 passed in C.F.No.736 of 2025 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram.,
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AT THE BAR
2. Heard Mr. Posani Akash, learned counsel for the Petitioners; Respondent No.3 who appeared as party-in-person and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. The sum and substance of the contentions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is as follows
a. Respondent No.3 filed a private complaint in C.F.No.736 of 2025 under Section 175 (3) BNSS (corresponding to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.), arraying the Petitioners who are Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendents of Police and Inspector of Police respectively, as Accused.
b. The learned Special Judge, vide order dated 30.06.2025, mechanically referred the complaint for investigation and report without recording reasons or demonstrating application of judicial mind.
c. The alleged incident pertains to 25.03.2025, whereas the Petitioners being Police Officials, had been on official duties at different places at the relevant time. Respondent No.3 lodged a complaint with Respondent No.2 on the very same day and on the next day i.e., on 26.03.2025, she lodged a private complaint under Section 175 (3) of BNSS alleging inaction on the part of Respondent No.2.
d. The allegations made in the complaint by Respondent No.3 are utterly false and baseless. The alleged abuse against Respondent No.3 in the name of her caste was in chorus, which cannot constitute any offence under SCs & STs(PoA) Act. Mandatory prerequisites under Section 175 (3) BNSS were not examined; there is no satisfaction recorded regarding compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) , nor any supporting reasons, contrary to the law laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. ,
e. Allegations are bald and omnibus, lacking corroboration. Respondent No.3 is a habitual complainant, having filed about 35 complaints, many under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, and received compensation in several cases, indicating abuse of process. Continuation of proceedings amounts to harassment and abuse of law, causing irreparable prejudice and serious damage to the Petitioners’ career. Ultimately learned counsel prays to quash the impugned order passed in C.F. No.736 of 2025.
4. The brief submissions of the Respondent No.3 who appeared as party-in-person are as follows:
a. Due to refusal by her father to hand over assigned land under the YSR Housing Scheme, Petitioners herein approached Respondent No.3 on 25.03.2025 at 8.30 a.m., while she was going to M.R.O Office, Uravakonda Mandal, and beat her with hands and kicked with legs and also abused her in filthy language, invoking her caste.
b. A complaint was lodged with the DIG, DGP and Home Minister on 25.03.2025, but no action was taken. A further complaint was sent to DIG, DGP and Home Minister by registered post, which also evoked no response. Upon filing a private complaint under Section 175 (3) BNSS , the learned Special Judge referred the complaint to the concerned DIG of Police with a request to entrust the matter to any other competent investi
