Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1533 (AP)

Allu Arjun v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-11-06

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER : A movie star and a former Member of Legislative Assembly who are arraigned as A1 and A2 respectively filed this criminal petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)/Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash F.I.R. in Crime No.71 of 2024 of Nandyal II Town Police Station, Nandyal District registered for the offence punishable under Section 188 I.P.C. 2. Heard arguments of Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, the learned Counsel for petitioners and Sri K. Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 3. Perused the record. 4. The following point falls for consideration : "Whether registration of F.I.R. by police for the offence punishable under Section 188 I.P.C. and permitting the investigation agency to proceed further would be abuse of the process of the Court or would defeat the ends of justice requiring interference of this Court? Point : 5. Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, the learned Counsel for petitioners cited the statute and the precedent and contended that the very registration of F.I.R. is in violation of the statute and the precedent and therefore, the same shall be quashed. The learned Counsel further submitted on merits of the facts alleged stating that even if all the facts mentioned in F.I.R. are taken to be true, they do not constitute either the offence alleged or any other offence. Therefore, seeks the interference of this Court. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has not disputed the statute and the precedent cited by the learned Counsel for petitioners and submits that the petition may be disposed of in accordance with law. 7. On a written information filed by the Deputy Tahsildar, F.I.R. was registered and the written information reads as below : “To, The Circle Inspector, II Town Police Station, Nandyal. Report given by P. Ramachandra Rao, F.S.T. Shift-1, Team-2, 139 of Nandyala Assembly Constituency. Sir, I am working as Deputy Tahsildar, Nandyal Rural and presently posted as F.S.T., Team-2, Shift-1, in-charge in view of the Assembly and Parliament General elections at Nandyala to be held on 13.05.2024. Today i.e., on 11.05.2024, Nandyala RO directed me to participate in the program being conducted by former Chief Minister Sri Nara Chandra Babu and also further directed me to take video coverage from helipad to public meeting. On the directions of RO, I have discharged my duties as in-charge FST, Team-2, Shift-1. Today i.e., on 11.05.2024, Nandyala RO directed me to participate in the program being conducted by former Chief Minister Sri Nara Chandra Babu and also further directed me to take video coverage from helipad to public meeting. On the directions of RO, I have discharged my duties as in-charge FST, Team-2, Shift-1. But on the same day Cine Actor Sri Allu Arjun came to Nandyala Town to meet Nandyala MLA Shilpa Ravi Chandra Kishore Reddy at his residence. A large number of people gathered there to catch a glimpse of the celebrity. I did not go to the residence of Shilpa Ravi Chandra Kishore Reddy for video coverage. But in the media videos, a large number of people gathered at the residence of Sri Ravi Chandra Kishore Reddy. Since Election Code is in force, the authorities invoked Section 144 Cr.P.C. as well as Section 30 of Police Act. Therefore, the arrival of Allu Arjun coming to Nandyala without obtaining prior permission from RO, Nandyala knowing pretty well and he is celebrity, he has a fan following and if he comes, a large number of people and fans will gather. Thus, Sri Allu Arjun and Nandyala MLA Sri Shilpa Ravi Chandra Kishore Reddy violated Election Code. Hence this complaint is given to initiate action against them for violation of Election Code. Sd/-xxx, 11.05.2024 P. Ramachandra Rao F.S.T., Shift-1, Team-2. 139 Nandyal Assembly Constituency, Cell No : 9440572918 Sir, Received on 11.5.2024 at 14:30 hrs., and based on the strength of above complaint, I registered a case in Cr.No.71/2024, under Section 188 IPC of Nandyal II Town UPS, submitted FIR Copies to all Officers concerned and took up investigation. Sd/-xxx Inspector, Nandyal, II Town P.S. 11.05.2024.” 8. The only offence alleged against these petitioners is under Section 188 I.P.C., which reads as below : "188. Sd/-xxx Inspector, Nandyal, II Town P.S. 11.05.2024.” 8. The only offence alleged against these petitioners is under Section 188 I.P.C., which reads as below : "188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.-Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation.-It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. 'A' knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. 'A' has committed the offence defined in this section." 9. As one would notice the printed F.I.R. mentions that the above referred written information was registered as F.I.R. in terms of Section 154 Cr.P.C. A perusal of Section 154 Cr.P.C. would show that an officer in-charge of a police station on receiving information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence shall enter the same in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. Acting under this provision F.I.R. was registered. Acting under this provision F.I.R. was registered. In the normal course the offence mentioned in the F.I.R. would be investigated into and would result in filing a police report requesting the Court to take cognizance and prosecute the accused or a final report requesting the Court to drop the case. Section 190 Cr.P.C., permits the Judicial Magistrate of First Class to take cognizance of any offence upon receiving a police report or upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence. However, while taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate is to keep in view the other statutory commands inhibiting him in acting in one or the other way with reference to aspects of cognizance. One would see Section 195 of Cr.P.C., is about prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. In first part of this provision, it is stipulated that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. This provision makes it clear that if the offence for which the learned Magistrate is to take cognizance is one under Section 188 of I.P.C., he could take cognizance only on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned filed before the Court. In other words mean that the Magistrate could not take cognizance for an offence under Section 188 of I.P.C. on a police report. Every F.I.R. must finally find its culmination in an order of the Court competent and not otherwise. Even if everything is correct and the impugned F.I.R. takes its legal course it finds a stumbling block at the Court of the learned Magistrate as no cognizance could be taken against such an offence on a police report. Therefore, any effort of the State in trying to pursue the impugned F.I.R. would lead it to nowhere. Therefore, any such pursuit on part of the State is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, any effort of the State in trying to pursue the impugned F.I.R. would lead it to nowhere. Therefore, any such pursuit on part of the State is an abuse of process of law. In that view of the matter, the petitioners are fully justified in requesting this Court to quash the F.I.R. In fact, the claim of the petitioners is governed by the above referred principles which were also held in similar way by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1206 . 10. Coming to the facts alleged in the written information, the question is whether they do indicate any cognizable offence or not. So far as A1/the Movie Star-Sri Allu Arjun is concerned, it is undisputed that A2/Sri Singareddy Ravi Chandra Kishore Reddy @ Sri Shilpa Ravi Chandra Kishore Reddy has been his friend and the visit of A1 to the house of A2 is a matter that was personal between them. The allegation is that A1 commands celebrity status and when he went to the house of A2 several people gathered there. That allegation shows that A1 and A2 by themselves did not invite any of that crowd. A crowd going there was meant to be dispersed by the law enforcement agency. Instead of doing that, the Tahsildar initiated the criminal process in a wrong way. He could have informed his superiors who passed the orders about the violation of orders allowing the superior to take a decision and filed a complaint before the Magistrate. The police officer registered the crime without regard to the statute that has been in place for a century and the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for petitioners that each citizen enjoys fundamental freedom of movement as enshrined in Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India and a friend meeting another friend is an absolute innocent act and can never be termed as a crime. F.I.R. does not indicate the gathering of such a crowd led to any obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or caused danger to human life, health or safety, or had likelihood of causing a riot or affray. F.I.R. does not indicate the gathering of such a crowd led to any obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or caused danger to human life, health or safety, or had likelihood of causing a riot or affray. Therefore, even on facts the written information did not disclose any cognizable offence and the officer who registered it had done it without application of any mind whatsoever. In the above-mentioned circumstances, allowing this F.I.R. to survive is sheer abuse of law. Quashing it leads to securing the ends of justice. Point is answered in favour of the petitioners. 11. In the result, this criminal petition is allowed. Accordingly, F.I.R. dated 11.05.2024 in Crime No.71 of 2024 of Nandyal II Town Police Station, Nandyal District registered for the offence punishable under Section 188 I.P.C. against the petitioners/A1 and A2 is hereby quashed.