Kakani Govardhan Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Kakani Govardhan Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Common order with mixed results: (1) Crl.P.No.4831 of 2026 ALLOWED - proceedings in Cr.No.44/2026 of Podalakur Police Station set aside, and the report/complaint of Respondent No.2 to be treated as a statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 CrPC; (2) Crl.P.No.5063 of 2026 DISMISSED for the present. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Is the second FIR - Crime No.44/2026 lodged by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Podalakur Police Station on the very same day and time as, and with the same averments as, the police proceedings registered as Crime No.40/2026 - impermissible and liable to be set aside? +1 more

Court's answer

Registering a second or successive FIR (here Cr.No.44/2026) in respect of the same incident or transaction already registered as Cr.No.40/2026 is impermissible; therefore the subsequent FIR of Crime No.44/2026 of Podalakur Police Station is liable to be set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The report/complaint of Respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.4831 of 2026 shall be treated as a statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.T. Antony supra.

Key takeaways

For offences punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the investigating officer is under a legal obligation to proceed in accordance with law and shall follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 41 and 41(A) of the Cr.P.C. (now Sections 35 and 35(3) of the BNSS) - notice under Section 35(3) BNSS being the rule and arrest not undertaken unless warranted.ratio¶87
The Petitioner is obliged to render his fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation; and if it is noticed in the course of investigation that the Petitioner has committed any offence punishable with imprisonment beyond seven years, the investigating officer is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.ratio¶87

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J., 07.07.2026 - Common order in Crl.P.Nos.4831 & 5063 of 2026 (Kakani Govardhan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh), filed under S.528 BNSS seeking quashment of Cr.Nos.40/2026 and 44/2026, Podalakur P.S., SPSR Nellore. (i) The Head Constable registered Cr.No.40/2026 on 09.05.2026 (Ss.189(2), 189(3), 285, 292, 351(2) r/w 3(5) BNS) and, on the very same day and time, the Sub-Inspector lodged a fresh complaint as Cr.No.44/2026 with identical averments; such second/successive FIR being impermissible, the Court, FOLLOWING T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and RELYING ON Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India, SET ASIDE the proceedings in Cr.No.44/2026 (Crl.P.4831 allowed) and directed that Respondent No.2's report/complaint be treated as a statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under S.161 CrPC. (ii) As the alleged offences in Cr.No.40/2026 attract imprisonment below seven years, the Court directed (RELYING ON Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Md. Asfak Alam) that the Investigating Officer follow the Ss.41/41-A CrPC procedure (now Ss.35 and 35(3) BNSS) - notice being the rule, arrest not routine - while the Petitioner must cooperate fully; with only thirteen witnesses examined and the material portion of investigation incomplete, veracity of the allegations was left to post-chargesheet factual assessment, and Crl.P.No.5063 of 2026 was dismissed for the present.

Date of reserved for orders : -- Date of pronouncement : 07.07.2026 Date of uploading :

APHC010305002026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3521]

TUESDAY, THE 7^th DAY OF JULY 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 4831 & 5063 of 2026

Crl.P.No.4831 of 2026

Between:

KAKANI GOVARDHAN REDDY, ,S/O.RAMANA REDDY,AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,EX-MLA OF SARVEPALLI ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY,RESIDENT OF KOVUR ROAD, NEAR DYCUS ROAD CENTER,NELLORE-524004.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITSPUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT AMARAVATI

MOHAMMAD HANEEF SK, ,AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.WORKING AS SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PODALAKUR P.S.,SPSRNELLORE DISTRICT- 524345.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1.B SESIBUSHAN RAO

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

2

Crl.P.No.5063 of 2026

Between:

KAKANI GOVARDHAN REDDY, S/O.RAMANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, EX-MLA OF SARVEPALLI ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY, RESIDENT OF KOVUR ROAD, NEAR DYCUS ROAD CENTER, NELLORE-524004

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

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

A VIJAYA MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. WORKING AS HEAD CONSTABLE, PODALAKUR P.S., SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT524345.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1.B SESIBUSHAN RAO

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER:

These two Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of together, as the Petitioner in both these two Criminal Petitions are the same.

Criminal Petitions have been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 seeking quashment of the proceedings in Crime No.44/2026 and Crime No.40/2026 on the file of Podalakur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District.

3

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor.

The Head Constable of Podalakur Police Station on 09.05.2026 at about 11:30 to 12:30 drafted police proceedings and registered it as a case in Cr.No.40 of 2026 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 189(3), 285, 292, 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS.,’).

Surprisingly, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Podalakur Police Station on the very same day at the very same time lodged a complaint, Crime No.44/2026, with the Station House Officer with the same averment of the police proceedings in Cr.No.40/2026.

In this regard, it is opposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala¹ , wherein at para Nos.27, 28 and 35, it is held that while the police have power under Section 173(8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to conduct further investigation, registering a second or successive FIR in respect of the same incident or transaction is impermissible and amounts to an abuse of the investigative process. Any additional material or findings ought to be incorporated only by seeking leave of the Court and filing a further report in the original FIR, and not by initiating a fresh investigation through a new FIR. Accordingly, the second FIR and the investigation pursuant thereto

were quashed, while leaving it open to the investigating agency to seek permission for further investigation in the earlier cases in accordance with law.

1 (2001) 6 SCC 181

4

It is further relevant to mention that the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India² wherein at para Nos.59 and 61.5 the Court noted that multiple FIRs and complaints were filed against the Petitioner across several States and Union Territories in respect of the same cause of action. By an interim order dated 24.04.2020, the Hon’ble Apex Court stayed further proceedings in all FIRs and complaints except the one originally registered at Police Station Sadar, Nagpur, which was later transferred to N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai. Accepting the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, the Court held that fairness in the administration of criminal justice warranted exercise of jurisdiction to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. Relying on the law laid down in T.T. Antony supra , the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that successive FIRs or complaints founded on the same transaction are not maintainable. Consequently, all FIRs and complaints enumerated, except the one under investigation at Mumbai, were quashed. 8. Therefore, the subsequent FIR of Crime No.44/2026 of Podalakur Police Station is liable to be set aside. The report/complaint of Respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.4831 of 2026 shall be treated as a statement recorded by Investigating Officer under Section 161 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in T.T.Antony supra.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition No.4831 of 2026 is allowed, setting aside the proceedings in Cr.No.44/2026 of Podalakur Police Station.

2 2020 SCC OnLine SC 462

5

In Criminal Petition No.5063 of 2026, as seen from the record, the alleged offences levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 are punishable

with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Practical Solutions Inc. v. State of

Telangana³ has held as follows:

“We also take notice of the fact that the petition before the High Court was to quash the FIR. In a petition where quashing of the FIR is prayed for, the High Court should not have passed an order directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because it indirectly amounts to granting a relief which the High Court could have considered only if a prima facie case for quashing of the FIR is made out.”

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Satender Kumar Antil v.

Central Bureau of Investigation⁴ , wherein at paragraph No.33, it is held as

under:

“33. On the basis of the interpretation given by us, we conclude as follows:

a. An arrest by a police officer is a mere statutory discretion which facilitates him to conduct proper investigation, in the form of collection of evidence and, therefore, shall not be termed as mandatory.

b. Consequently, the police officer shall ask himself the question as to whether an arrest is a necessity or not, before undertaking the said exercise.

c. For effecting an arrest, qua an offence punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, the mandate of Section 35(1)(b)(i) of the BNSS, 2023 along with any one of the conditions mentioned in Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of the BNSS, 2023 must be in existence. d. A notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 to an accused or any individual concerned, qua offences punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, is the rule.

e. Even if the circumstances warranting an arrest of a person are available in terms of the conditions mentioned under Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, the arrest shall not be undertaken, unless it absolutely warranted.

f. Power of arrest under Section 35(6) read with Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, pursuant to a notice issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 is not a matter of routine, but an

3 2026 SCC Online SC 923

4 Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, dated 15.01.2026

6

exception, and the police officer is expected to be circumspect and slow in exercising the said power.”

13. Furthermore, in this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex

Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar⁵ , wherein a detailed guidelines

were issued at Para Nos.11 and 12, for arresting a person, which are being reproduced herein below:-

“ 11. Our endeavor in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

a).All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’);

b) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

c) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

d) The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;

e) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

f) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

g) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, he shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

h) Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

12. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less

5(2014) 8 SCC 273

7

than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.”

The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md.Asfak Alam supra , which also reiterated the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar .

In the light of the law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil, Arnesh Kumar and Md. Asfak Alam , the investigating officer is under legal obligation to proceed in accordance with law, but he shall follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 41 and 41(A) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ (now Sections 35 and 35(3) of ‘the BNSS.,’). The Petitioner is obliged to render his fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. If it is noticed in the course of investigation that the Petitioner has committed any offence which is punishable with imprisonment beyond seven years, the investigating officer is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

So far only thirteen witnesses have been examined. Material portion of the investigation is not completed. There are specific allegations attributed by Respondent No.2 in the police proceedings. So, at this stage, this Court cannot look into the veracity of the allegations levelled by the Respondent No.2 in the police proceedings.

Whether the Petitioner has caused disturbance or hindrance or obstructions to the activities of the Police by sitting on the road are all subject matter of factual assessment or appreciation at appropriate time that too only after filing of chargesheet. There are no merits in Criminal Petition No.5063 of

8

2021 for the present and Criminal Petition No.5063 of 2021 is accordingly

dismissed.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

_________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

Dated: 07.07.2026 VTS

Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No