Disposed¶61

Koppula Jyothi Ratna Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Apr 2026WP/26558/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AP High Court Amaravati; K. Sreenivasa Reddy; WP 26558/2021 (decided 16.04.2026); Koppula Jyothi Ratna Babu (Guntur advocate) v. State of AP & Sub-Inspector, Prathipadu PS; FIR Cr.No.343/2021, Sections 307 & 337 r/w 34 IPC; petitioner arraigned as Accused No.10 without averment after complaining against SI; writ held premature; interim no-coercive-steps order of 16.11.2021 made absolute; remedies left open; misc applications closed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; interim direction dated 16.11.2021 (respondents not to take coercive steps against the petitioner) made absolute; remedies of the petitioner left open as per law; miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed; no order as to costs. ¶61

Koppula Jyothi Ratna Babu Vs State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking a declaration that respondent No.5 (Sub-Inspector, Prathipadu Police Station) illegally/arbitrarily registered Crime No.343 of 2021 arraigning the petitioner as Accused No.10 without any averment, quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner, and departmental/penal action against respondent No.5, is premature at the investigation stage. +1 more

¶54

Court's answer

Merely because the Writ Petitioner was shown as an accused in Crime No.343 of 2021 by respondent No.5, it would not enable the Writ Petitioner to proceed against respondent No.5.

¶59

Ratio / Principle

What must be seen is the material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation regarding the involvement of the Writ Petitioner and his son in the crime.

¶59

Key takeaways

The writ petition is premature to conclude that proceedings should be initiated against respondent No.5, whose alleged act was done in discharge of his official functions.ratio¶59
In view of the facts and circumstances, the interim direction passed on 16.11.2021 is made absolute.ratio¶59
The writ petition is disposed of leaving open the remedies available to the petitioner as per law, with no order as to costs.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy), Writ Petition No.26558 of 2021, decided 16.04.2026: Koppula Jyothi Ratna Babu, a practising advocate of Guntur, was arraigned as Accused No.10 in Crime No.343 of 2021 of Prathipadu Police Station (offences under Sections 307 and 337 read with 34 IPC) shortly after he lodged complaints against respondent No.5, the Sub-Inspector of Police; he sought a declaration that his implication without any averment in the report dated 15.10.2021 was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21, quashing of the FIR proceedings against him, and departmental enquiry/penal action against respondent No.5. Held: merely being shown as an accused does not enable the petitioner to proceed against respondent No.5; the material collected by the Investigating Officer regarding his and his son's involvement had first to be examined; the petition was premature, the alleged act having been done in discharge of official functions. Disposed of accordingly, making absolute the interim direction of 16.11.2021 that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner, leaving his legal remedies open, closing miscellaneous applications, and awarding no costs.

¶1

APHC010438962021

¶2

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

¶3

[3327]

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 26558/2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

KOPPULA JYOTHI RATNA BABU, S/O. BHASKAR RAO AGED 50 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE R/O. 5-173, SC COLONY, THIMMAPURAM, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522233. ...PETITIONER

¶10

A N D

¶11

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI

¶12

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 0/O. DGP, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT -522502.

¶13

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL GUNTUR RANGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR URBAN, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, PRATHIPADU POLICE STATION, PRATHIPADU, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶16

KATTEBOINA VENKATESWARLU, S/O. SIVAIAH AGED 38 YEARS, RIO. THUMMALAPALEM, PRATHIPADU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant an order, direction or writ, more so in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a) To declare the the high-handed action of the Respondent No.5 is registering the FIR in Cr.No.343 of 2021 on the file of Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur District arraigning the Petitioner as Accused No.10 without there

¶19

SRK, J W.P.No.26558 of 2021

¶20

¶21

being any averment against him in the report dated 15.10.2021 as illegal, arbitrary, frivolous, violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to quash the proceedings in FIR in Cr.No. 343 of 2021 on the file of Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur District as against the Petitioner. b) To direct the Respondents NO.1 to 4 to initiate departmental enquiry and penal action against Respondent No.5 by considering the representations of the Petitioner dated 16.10.2021 c) And pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No.1 to 4 to change the Investigation Officer in Cr.No. 343 of 2021 on the file of Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur District for the alleged offences under sections 307, 337 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and pass

¶24

IA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including arrest of the Petitioner in Cr.No. 343 of 2021 on the file of Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur District for the alleged offences under sections 307, 337 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and pass

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

1.ARUN SHOWRI GORREMUCHU

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.GP FOR HOME

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

SRK, J W.P.No.26558 of 2021

¶32

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

This Writ Petition was filed seeking the following relief:

¶35

“…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus:

¶36

(a) To declare the high-handed action of respondent No.5 in registering the FIR in Crime No.343 of 2021 of Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur District arraigning the petitioner as accused No.10 without there being any averment against him in the report dated 15.10.2021 as illegal, arbitrary, frivolous, violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, to quash the proceedings in Crime No.343 of 2021 of Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur as against the petitioner;

¶37

(b) To direct the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to initiate departmental enquiry and penal action against respondent No.5 by considering the representations of the petitioner dated 16.10.2021;

¶38

(c) And pass such other order or orders …”

¶39

2. Contents of the affidavit filed by the Writ Petitioner, in

¶40

brief, are that the Writ Petitioner is practicing as an Advocate in Guntur; that on 15.10.2021 FIR in Crime No.343 of 2021 of Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur Urban was registered, arraigning the Writ Petitioner’s son viz., Kamineni Bala Sanjay as accused No.8, for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 337 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’).

¶41

SRK, J W.P.No.26558 of 2021

¶42

¶43

(b) It was alleged in the complaint that on 15.10.2021 at about 10.00 pm., near Srinu Tea Stall, Service Road of NH-16, Parvathipuram village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District, respondent No.6/ de facto complainant was going towards Guntur on his motorcycle and was hit by a car, coming in the opposite direction and the inmates of the car fled away without waiting and that, the respondent No.6/ de facto complainant sustained knee injury; that after sometime, one Prem Kumar, Vamsi, Pavan, Manikant, Challa Gopi came back in the same car and picked up quarrel with respondent No.6/ de facto complainant, and were alleged to have attacked him with beer bottles, beat him on his head; that the respondent No.6/ de facto complainant called his relative viz., Thota Venkateswara Rao to his rescue and when he questioned them as to why they beat the respondent No.6/ de facto complainant, one Sambaiah @ Goddali, Muthakana Gopi were also alleged to have attacked Thota Venkateswara Rao by beating him with hands and hit him with a steel bangle/bracelet on the forehead and inflicted injuries.

¶44

(c) Neither the averments in the FIR mention the name of one Sanjay, son of Writ Petitioner, nor was he arraigned as accused in the FIR, but in the report of respondent No.6/ complainant, he states that one Sanjay as one of the persons, who

¶45

SRK, J W.P.No.26558 of 2021

¶46

¶47

beat him, which creates an ample suspicion. That one Prathimala Veeranjaneyulu and 40 others were alleged to have beat the son of Writ Petitioner and his friends, when they questioned the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.6/complainant; that the Writ Petitioner’s son viz., Sanjay, Chilla Pavan, Boda Sambaiah, Sankuri Vamsi and Kamineni Prem went to the police station with an intent to give report, but instead of receiving the report, respondent No.5 kept them in illegal custody at 5.00 p.m. on 15.10.2021 and beat them indiscriminately and harassed them with physical torture.

¶48

(d) The Writ Petitioner gave representation to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and also to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 16.10.2021 at 7.00 p.m. and after sending the representations through e-Mail to the respondent Nos.2 to 4, and pursuant to the same, a Memo dated 17.10.2021 was placed by 3^rd respondent on the file of the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur adding the Writ Petitioner, his son and others; that neither in the report given to the police on 15.10.2021, nor in the FIR, there was any mention about any other persons except accused Nos.1 to 7 in the said crime, and the name of Writ Petitioner, his son and others were mentioned without there being any averment, only for

¶49

SRK, J W.P.No.26558 of 2021

¶50

¶51

the reason that the Writ Petitioner gave complaint against respondent No.5. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶52

Heard the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner and perused the entire material available on record.

¶53

The only grievance of the Writ Petitioner is to take action as against 5^th respondent/Sub-Inspector of Police, Prathipadu Police Station for implicating the Writ Petitioner and his son as accused in Crime No.343 of 2021 of Prathipadu Police Station. The grievance of the Writ Petitioner is that, originally, a case in Crime No.343 of 2021 of Prathipadu Police Station has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 337 read with 34 of IPC. Thereafter, a complaint has been filed

¶54

by the Writ Petitioner herein as against 5^th respondent, and in pursuant of the same, 5^th respondent was alleged to have falsely implicated the Writ petitioner and his son as accused in Crime No.343 of 2021 of Prathipadu Police Station. In connection with that, the present Writ Petition came to be filed on the ground that with the vengeance, 5^th respondent/Sub-Inspector of Police, Prathipadu Police Station, implicated the Writ Petitioner and his son in the aforesaid crime and seeking a direction to proceed as against 5^th respondent/Sub-Inspector of Police, Prathipadu Police Station.

¶55

SRK, J W.P.No.26558 of 2021

¶56

¶57

This Court, at the time of admission, vide Order dated

¶58

16.11.2021 directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps as against the Writ Petitioner.

¶59

It is pertinent to mention herein that merely because, the Writ Petitioner was shown as an accused in Crime No.343 of 2021 of Prathipadu Police Station by 5^th respondent/Sub-Inspector of Police, Prathipadu Police Station, it would not enable the Writ Petitioner to proceed as against 5^th respondent. It has to be seen as to what is the material that has been collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation in the said crime, insofar as involvement of the Writ Petitioner and his son in committing the said crime. At this juncture, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petition is premature to come to a conclusion as to proceed as against the respondent No.5 for the aforesaid act, which is done in discharge of his official function. However, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the interim direction passed by this Court on 16.11.2021, is made absolute.

¶60