Ram Singh, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHC010079812022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

[3396]

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1258/2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

RAM SINGH,, S/O SH HARI SINGH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, ADDL. SP, CBI, SC-III, NEW DELHI, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION SPECIAL CRIME-III, CGO COMPLEX NEW DELHI.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP AND RIMS, P.S., YSR KADAPA

¶12

GAJJALA UDAY KUMAR REDDY, S/O GAJJALA JAYA PRAKASH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 3-7-11-3-1, BHAKRAPURAM, PULIVENDULA, DIST. YSR KADAPA.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶15

M.SRAVAN KUMAR

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶17

V R REDDY KOVVURI

¶18

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶19

The Court made the following Order :

¶20

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of

¶21

Cr.P.C., by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in Crime No.29 of 2022 in RIMS Police Station, YSR Kadapa

¶22

2

¶23

District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 195A, 323 and 506 read with 34 IPC.

¶24

Heard Sri M.Sravan Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶25

Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as an Additional Superintendent of Police and has been deputed to investigate the suspicious death of Sri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that respondent No. 2, in order to hamper the investigation, has filed a false complaint based on baseless allegations, which has been registered as a case in Crime No. 29 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 195A, 323, and 506 read with 34 of the IPC. He further submits that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner in the complaint to attract the said offences. He also submits that the private complaint filed by respondent No. 2 is not accompanied by a sworn affidavit, which is mandatory as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Shrivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh¹ .

¶26

It is further contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that, in order to escape the investigation with regard to the suspicious death of Sri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, respondent No. 2 has resorted to the method of demoralizing the investigating officers by filing a false

¶27

1 (2015) 6 SCC 287

¶28

3

¶29

complaints against them. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No. 3597 of 2025, dated 19.08.2025, in similar circumstances, quashed the proceedings against the Appellants therein, which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned Special Public Prosecutor therefore prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶30

Per contra, Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, submits that though respondent No. 2 and his father are innocent in relation to the offence concerning the death of Sri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, the petitioner herein is attempting to implicate them in the said case. The petitioner, under the guise of investigation and allegedly influenced by the complaint in the said case, has been harassing respondent No. 2 and his family members in connection with the said crime. It is further submitted that although respondent No. 2 has complained about the matter to the concerned Station House Officer as well as to the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District, no action has been taken against the petitioner herein. As such, he resorted to file a private complaint. Learned counsel further submits that there are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein and, hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

Considering the submissions made, a bare perusal of the material placed on record shows that the petitioner herein has been entrusted with

¶32

4

¶33

the investigation of the case relating to the death of Sri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy. As rightly submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in similar circumstances, quashed the proceedings in Crime No. 642 of 2023 of Pulivendula Police Station, arising out of the same investigation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically observed that there was not an iota of material to implicate the appellants therein, who were alleged to have influenced the petitioner herein to implicate respondent No. 2 in the said case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against the appellants, holding that they had no nexus with the investigating officer therein.

¶34

In the instant case, the petitioner, who is the investigating officer in a case relating to the death of Sri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, has been discharging his duties. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complaint are vague and baseless. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the petitioner, the complaint is not accompanied by an affidavit of the complainant, which is mandatory as per the law laid down in Priyanka Shrivastava’s case (supra). The filing of false and frivolous complaints against investigating officers in order to evade investigation cannot be entertained. There are no grounds to continue the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶35