The Court made the following:

ORDER

1. The 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 No.1, seeking to quash the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.1 in FIR.No.40 of 2021 on the file of Ramachandrapuram Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188 and 171-E of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity „the IPC‟). The Investigating Officer, after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet, but the same was returned for want of compliance under Section 41-A of „the Cr.P.C‟.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Notice on respondent No.2 is not required, inasmuch as respondent No.2 is represented by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

4. Sri Ch.Srinivas, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, a senior reporter working with Andhra Jyothi Daily Newspaper, has no connection with the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated due to personal grudge, merely on the basis of the name “Gurrappa,” though several persons in Anupalli Gram Panchayat bear the same name. It is further submitted that the petitioner never participated in any election canvassing or distribution of sarees, and the allegations are vague, with no specific material or details as to whom the alleged items were distributed.

5. It is further submitted that the notice under Section 160 of „the Cr.P.C‟. was served through WhatsApp, not in accordance with law, and that the alleged offence under Section 177-E of „the IPC‟ does not exist, reflecting non- application of mind by the police. Though the petitioner appeared before the police, the concerned officer was not present, and thereafter no communication was made, while the petitioner was allegedly harassed, forcing him to approach higher authorities.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the crime was registered in 2021, no charge sheet or final report has been filed for more than three and a half years, nor has any extension been sought. The prolonged pendency is causing prejudice to the petitioner, including difficulty in obtaining passport and visa, and therefore, the continued proceedings amount to abuse of process of law and are liable to be quashed.

7. Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the complaint discloses a prima facie case, as the investigation indicates involvement of the petitioner in distribution of sarees to influence voters, attracting offences under Sections 188 and 171-E of „the IPC'. Non- mentioning of specific beneficiaries is not a ground to quash the proceedings at the threshold. It is further submitted that the investigation is still pending and the delay in filing the charge sheet is due to administrative reasons. The petitioner has participated in the enquiry, and the truth of the allegations can be determined only after Trial. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Petition.

8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

9. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the proceedings in F.I.R.No.40/2021 on the file of Ramachandrapuram Police Station, Tirupati District is liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟/Section 528 of „the BNSS‟?"

10. In th is regard it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in C. Muniappan v. State of T.N.,, (2010) 9 SCC 567 wherein at paragraph Nos.28 & 29, it is held as under:

“28. Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sect