APHC010416132021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6077/2021 Between:

1.D.SASIKALA, W/O VENKATA RAMANA REDDY,AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,OCC BUSINESS R/O DUSSAVANDLAPALLI,PEDDAMALLELA VILLAGE,ROMPICHERLA MANDAL,CHITTOR DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH SHO ROMPICHERLA PS,REP.THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,AMARAVATHI,GUNTUR DISTRICT

2.M SUDHAKAR, S/O M.NARASIMHULU,AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,OCC.PANCHAYAT SECRETARY CHALLAVARIPALLE,C/O CHALLAVARIPALLE PANCHAYAT OFFICER,ROMPICHERLA MANDAL,CHITTOR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1.M R K CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

Dr.YLR,J

ORDER

Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused in FIR.No.366 of 2021 on the file of Rompicherla Police Station, Rompicherla Mandal, Chittoor District.

2. The allegations against the Petitioner are that despite the seizure of her factory on 08.09.2021 under a Mahazarnama and the issuance of notice directing closure for want of valid licenses, she continued to operate the DSK Cement Bricks Factory situated in Survey No.887, Rompicherla Cross, Bommaiahgaripalli Panchayat, Rompicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. On 10.09.2021, the complainant along with vigilance officials allegedly found the factory open and functioning, thereby accusing the Petitioner of disobeying lawful orders of a public servant, trespassing into the seized premises, cheating the government by running an unlicensed business, and endangering public safety.

3. Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the entire proceedings are vitiated as the Respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1995 to order closure of the factory. The alleged mediator’s report dated 08.09.2021, which forms the basis of the FIR, has already been impugned in W.P.No.20541 of 2021, where this Court has prima facie held that such a report is contrary to law.

Dr.YLR,J Government officers acting as mediators is impermissible, and therefore the very foundation of the FIR is illegal. Consequently, Section 188 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ cannot be invoked as there was no lawful order promulgated by a competent authority.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that none of the offences under Sections 188, 447, 336, or 420 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ are made out. There are no allegations of disobedience leading to harmful consequences under Section 188 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ no assertion of trespass with intent to annoy or insult under Section 447 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ no rash or negligent act causing hurt under Section 336 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and no dishonest inducement or delivery of property under Section 420 of ‘the I.P.C.’ The FIR is bereft of the essential ingredients required to constitute these offences, and hence registration of the case itself is an abuse of process.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner had obtained all necessary permits through the single window clearance system and was lawfully operating the factory. The registration of the crime is a result of political vendetta instigated by local leaders of the ruling party, who conspired with the Respondent No.2 to harass the Petitioner. The disconnection of power supply and fabrication of records, including the mediator’s report, demonstrate mala fide intent. The FIR is therefore malicious, arbitrary, and liable to be quashed to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Dr.YLR,J

6. Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, resisting the petition, submits that