K S Kalyanchakravarthy Vs the State of Andhra Rpadesh

K S KALYANCHAKRAVARTHY, S/O. K.VENKATESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT R/O. 304, VASANTHASADAN APARTMENT PADAMATALANKA, VIJAYAWADA

¶12

V VENKATANARASAMMA, D/O, RAMA RAO R/O. MIG 11/17, HOUSING BOARD NEAR RTC COLONY, MADHURAWADA - 530 048, VISAKHAPATNAM

¶13

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA RPADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONBLE HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT AMARAVATI.

¶16

THE S H O, POTHINA MALLAYYAPALEM (P M PALEM) POLICE STATION MADHURAWADA - 530 048, VISAKHAPATNAM

¶17

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶19

1.JITENDRA KANYALUR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶21

2

¶22

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO: 42642/2022

¶24

Between:

¶25

K S KALYANACHAKRAVARTHY, S/O K.VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, R/O 304, VASANTHASADAN APARTMENT, PADAMATALANKA VIJAYAWADA

¶26

...PETITIONER

¶27

AND

¶28

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶29

THE SHO POTHINA MALIAYYAPALYAM P M PALEM POLICE STATION, , MADHURAWADA -530048, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶30

V VENKATANARASAMMA, D/O RAMA RAO, R/O MIG 11/17, HOUSING BOARD, NEAR RTC COLONY, MADHURAWADA -530048, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶31

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶33

1.P VASU SEKHAR

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶35

1.GP FOR HOME

¶36

The Court made the following:

¶37

3

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

The two cases, Criminal Petition No.3787 of 2025 and Writ Petition No.42642 of 2022, are heard and disposed of by way of a common order, as they arise out of the complaint lodged by Respondent No.3.

¶40

The Criminal Petition No.3787 of 2025 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to quash proceedings against Petitioner/Accused in Cr.No.414 of 2008 on the file of the PothinaMallayyapalemPolice Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 417, 420, 506 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the IPC’) and Sections 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity, ‘the SC & ST(POA) Act’).

¶41

The Writ Petition No.42642 of 2022 has been filed for the following relief:

¶42

“…to issue a writ or order more particularly one in nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in noninvestigation of the Crime No.414 of 2008, Dated. 18-11-2008, on the file of Pothina Mallayyapalem P M Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offences punishable U/s 417, 420, 506, 313 IPC and 3(1) (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Schduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989., despite lapse of 14 valid years, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case…”

¶43

Heard the learned Counsel for Petitionersand the learned Counsel for

¶44

the Respondent No.3.

¶45

4

¶46

In Criminal Petition No.3787 of 2025, the petitioner seeks quashment of the proceedings in FIR No.414 of 2008. Respondent No.3 filed a complaint before the Station House Officer, Pothina Mallayyapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, alleging that the petitioner committed offences under Sections 417, 420, 506 and 313 of ‘the IPC’ and Section 3(1)(xii) of ‘the SC & ST (POA) Act’. Respondent No.3 belongs to the SC Mala community and has been working in the Panchayat Raj Department. She earlier served as Assistant Executive Engineer and was later promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer. The petitioner, aged about 60 years, is also working as an Assistant Executive Engineer. Respondent No.3 raised certain allegations against the petitioner, which are all subject matter of trial. The petitioner is required to face the prosecution and adduce evidence to prove his innocence. This Court cannot conduct a mini-trial regarding the allegations leveled against the petitioner by Respondent No.3.

¶47

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Anvita Auto Tech Works (P) Ltd. v. Aroush Motors¹ , observed in paragraph No.2 that the essence of the issue is aptly captured in the words of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, who emphasized that “ Procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. It is the handmaid of justice and not its mistress.”

¶48

In Writ Petition No.42642 of 2022, the petitioner has questioned the inaction of Respondent No.2 in not finalizing the investigation even after more than two decades. The petitioner has a right to an expeditious investigation

¶49

12025 SCC OnLine SC 2181

¶50

5

¶51

and filing of necessary proceedings, either by way of a final report or a charge sheet. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the records in the crime were misplaced, and therefore the Investigating Officer could not finalize the investigation against the petitioner.

¶52

It appears that there has been correspondence between the Presiding Officer of the learned IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, and the Registrar (Judicial). The learned trial court requested some more time to submit a detailed report. The report dated 04.11.2024 submitted by the

¶53

learned trial court to the Registrar (Judicial), it is mentioned as under:

¶54

“... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Sri T.Kishore, Jr. Assistant,IV Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate's court, Visakhapatnam after verifying the FIR register for the year 2009 as stated that crime no.437/2009 of III Town Police station was not received by this court. The register contain entries for crime nos. 436/2009,439/2009 but do not contain any entry of crime no.437/2009 received by this court. He has also placed the original FIR register before me and I have also verified the same and it do not contain any entry with regard to receiving FIR in crime no.437/2009 of III Town Police station. Photocopy of the relevant page of FIR register is enclosed for your honors kind perusal.

¶55

Sri T.Kishore, Jr. Assistant,IV Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate's court, Visakhapatnam after verifying fair copy register for the year 2013 stated that PRC No.13/2010 was committed to the Hon'ble Sessions Judge court for offences of SC and ST(POA) Act, Visakhapatnam on 1208-2013. He also placed the said fair copy register before me. He also placed dispatch register for sending the PRC 13/2010 in Dis No.908/2013 dated 25-11-2013 to he Hon'ble Sessions Judge court for offences of SC andST (POA) Act, Visakhapatnam. He has also placed before me the duplicate copy of committal order passed by this court in PRC 13/2010 on 12-08-2013. I have verified the said records. The accused in the said PRC is Sri Boligarla Surendra Reddy, S/o Late Bhaskar Reddy, Flat NO.158, Sector-4, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam and the victim in the said case is Manapati Ravindra Babu S/o Mastanyar, Narsingaraopeta, Guduru Junction, Nellore District and the said case relates to crime no.36/2009 of III Town PS under section 420 IPC and sec 3 (1)(x) of SC, ST and (POA) Act. Sri T.Kishore, Jr. Assistant, IV Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate's court, Visakhapatnam after verifying receive register for the year 2009 stated that there was no entry with regard to receiving Fir in crime no.437/2009 of III Town PS by this court. I have also verified the said received register and it do not contain any entry that crime no.437/2009 was received by this court. I am

¶56

6

¶57

herewith enclosing photocopies of fair copy register, FIR receive register and copy of PRC committal order for your honours kind perusal.

¶58

I humbly submit your honour I have directed our staff to verify other records to trace out whether FIR in crime no.437/2009 of III Town PS was received by this court at subsequent date also. On 02-11-2024 I have also directed to SHO, III Town PS to produce copy of FIR in crime no.437/2009, stage of the case and also part-1 case diary and the same is not yet received. I am submitting interim report as stated above for your honours kind perusal. Hence, I humbly request your honour to kindly grant 15 days time for submitting detailed report.”

¶59

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Dwarka Sub-Division, Visakhapatnam, has submitted an enquiry report to the Commissioner of

¶60

Police regarding the missing of the case file or making wrong entries in the records, and the findings are extracted here under:

¶61

“Findings:

¶62

1. Initially the case was registered at PM Palem Police Station, subsequently transferred to Nacharam Police Station, Cyberabad City from there to Yelamanchili and ultimately transferred to III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam where it was reregistered and investigated the then Asst. Commissioner of Police Sri M.Konda Reddy.

¶63

2. Sri M.Krishna Murthy Naidu, successor of Sri M.Konda Reddy, the then ACP, East Sub-Division took up investigation on 21.01.2010 as per the proceedings of the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam vide C.No.1615/C1/2009, dated: 21.01.2010.

¶64

3. After completion of the investigation, filed Charge Sheet on 24.07.2010 before the Hon'ble IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam.

¶65

4. The Hon'ble Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed the then Inspector of Police, MVP PS vide official memorandum dated:30.06.2022 that the FIR in Cr.No.437/2009 was not received by the Hon'ble Court, thus directed to file the acknowledgment, if any, as proof that the court received the FIR.

¶66

5. The then Inspector of Police, MVP PS submitted to the Hon'ble IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court dated:01.07.2022 that the records in MVP Police Station verify, but not traced the CD file in Cr.No.437/2009 anad requested to issue official Memorandum to SHO, III Town Police Station as the MVP Police Station was established in 2015.

¶67

6. The then SHO, MVP PS has also submitted the report dated: 15.07.2022 to the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam that on perusal of MCR noticed that a fake PRC vide 13/2010 was issued, but there is no such PRC number issued by the Hon'ble Court for this Case. 7. There is no proof that the FIR submitted to the Hon'ble Court and no DDR number obtained while filing the Charge Sheet, thus the records in both the Police Stations of III Town PS and MVP PS not showing about the stage of the CD file.

¶68

7

¶69

8. The SHO III Town PS has submitted instructions to the office of PP that the file is transferred to MVP Police Station, whereas the SHO, MVP Police Station has furnished instructions that the file is not available, further there is no record with reference to the receipt of the CD file.

¶70

9. The CCTNS portal was verified to retrieve the CD file and noticed that the Charge Sheet is uploaded 26.07.2010 along with the 161 statement of the victim, but no signed copies are uploaded.

¶71

10. The records such as Tappals book, MCRs and related records, to verify the stage of the case were also not available as those are related to 15 yrs back.

¶72

11. In the absence of any record about the transfer and receipt of the CD file, filing the Charge Sheet it is difficult to establish that the responsible person for missing of CD file.”

¶73

Ultimately, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Divisional Sub-

¶74

Division, Visakhapatnam, has expressed his inability to establish the person responsible for the missing of the case diary (CD) file. Nevertheless, the officers discharging their duties under the provisions of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ or ‘the BNSS’ are required to perform their duties with due diligence. They cannot discharge their duties in a callous manner while dealing with case records. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, is directed to initiate necessary disciplinary action against the police officials who are responsible for the misplacement of the record or for making incorrect entries in the records. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, is further directed to order for reconstruction of the case record and submit the same to the Jurisdictional Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶75

The learned IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to submit

¶76

an appropriate request to the learned Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, seeking permission for reconstruction of the missing record from his office end. Upon obtaining the requisite permission and completing the

¶77

8

¶78

reconstruction of the missing record, the learned IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate shall proceed with the case in accordance with law forthwith.

¶79

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, and the Criminal Petition is

¶80

dismissed. The petitioner shall establish his innocence, if any, before the learned Trial Court by leading evidence on his behalf and by cross-examining Respondent No.3, if required.There shall be no order as to costs.

¶81

As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶82

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

Date: 16.02.2026 PRA

9

199

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO