SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9750

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
MOTAMARRI VENKATA BABA PRASAD @ BABAPRASAD – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
CRLP 1615/2025



##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:23909

APHC010074202025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1615/2025

Between:

1. M OTAMARRI VENKATA BABA PRASAD @ BABAPRASAD, S/O

SESHAVATARAM, AGED 57 YEARS, D.NO. 10/307, EX. MUNICIPAL

CHAIRMAN, NIZARNPET, MACHILIPATNAM

2. K OTTE ANKA VENKATARAO, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO AGED 62

YEARS, D.NO.20/288, BRAHMAPURAM, MACHILIPATNAM

3. G ANIPISETTI GOPAL @ GOPAL KRISHNA, S/O CHALAPATHI RAO

AGED 63 YEARS, EDEPALLI MACHILIPATNAM

4. B ANDI RAMAKRISHNA, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO AGED 63

YEARS, D.NO.21-191-3, ENGLISHPALEM, MACHILIPATNAM

5. C HINNAM SIVA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO

AGED 39 YEARS, D.NO.25/108-1, JAGANNADHAPURAM,

MACHILIPATNAM

6. T IPPALA VENKATA KANTHARAO, S/O SURYAPRAKASA RAO,AGED

46 YEARS, D.NO.1-261, KHALEKHANPET, MACHILIPATNAM.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. T HE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT

MACHILIPATNAM.

##PAGE2##

2

2026:APHC:23909

3. S TATION HOUSE OFFICER, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE R. PET

POLICE STATION

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. MALLAVOLU NIKITHA

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following:

ORDER

Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) by the

Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 6, seeking to quash the proceedings against

Petitioner/Accused Nos.1 to 6 in C.C.No.555 of 2020 on the file of II Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

2. The allegations against the Petitioners arise from a report lodged by

one Mr. Lakshmimojinaidu Adapa, a labourer and resident of Ramanaidupet,

Machilipatnam. He lodged a complaint with the police alleging that on

07.01.2020 at about 17:20 hours, near the Head Post Office, Main Road,

Machilipatnam, the Petitioners, who are sympathizers of the Telugu Desam

Party and Janasena Party, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and

observed a Rasta Roko by standing on the main road near the Head Post

Office and raising slogans. It was further alleged that, as a result of their

actions, inconvenience was caused to the public by obstructing the free flow of

traffic. Based on the said report, a case in Crime No.5 of 2020 was registered

##PAGE3##

3

2026:APHC:23909

in the Robinsonpet Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections

341 and 188 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity

‘the I.P.C.,’).

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. M. Nikitha, contends that none

of the offences under Sections 341 and 188 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ are made out.

There is no material placed on record to establish that any order was

promulgated by a lawfully empowered public servant and that such order was

in force at the time of the alleged offence. Therefore, there are no allegations

of disobedience resulting in harmful consequences as required under Section

188 of ‘the I.P.C.’ Further, there is no act of wrongful restraint as defined

under Section 339 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and in the absence of any voluntary

obstruction preventing a person from proceeding in any direction in which he

has a right to proceed, the offence under Section 341 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is not

attracted. The FIR is bereft of the essential ingredients required to constitute

the alleged offences, and therefore the registration of the case itself amounts

to an abuse of the process of law.

4. Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in refutation of

the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, would

contend that the allegations in the FIR clearly disclose the commission of

cognizable offences. It is urged that the Petitioners, being political

sympathizers, had deliberately congregated on a public thoroughfare and

staged

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top