APHC010442322024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7062/2024 Between:

A GURRAPPA, S/O A CHENGAIAH AGED 51 YEARS, OCC- NEWS REPORTER R/O ANUPALLI VILLAGE, RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER RAMACHANDRAPURAM R C PURAM MANDAL TIRUPATHI DISTRICT

2. T V SRIDHAR, S/O T VENKATAPPA AGED 53 YEARS, OCC- HC 1363 RC PURAM POLICE STATION RC PURAM TIRUPATHI DISTRICT NOW IN MR PALLI POLICE STATION TIRUPATHI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

CH SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

ORDER

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 h