Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Nara Chandra Babu Naidu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 March, 2021

Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH,
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
:PRESENT: ey
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY --~

IA No. 4 OF 2021
CRLP NOs: 1762 & 1763 OF 2021

IA. No. 1 of 2021:
Between:
Nara Chandra Babu Naidu, S/o Kharjura Naidu, aged about 71 years, R/o Karakatta
Road, Undavalli Village, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur. District, Andhra Pradesh State.
...Petitioner/Accused No.1
(Petitioner in CRLP 1762 OF 2021
on the file of High Court)
AND ,
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Station Executive Officer, CID PS, A.P.
Amaravathi, Mangalagiri, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High court of Andhra --.-~
Pradesh, Amaravathi.
...Respondent/Complainant

2. Alla Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o Late Dasaratha Rami Reddy, Member of Legislative Assembly, Mangalagiri Assembly Constituency, Near Auto Nagar, Gowthamabuddha Road, Mangalagiri, Guntur District - 522 503, Andhra Pradesh.

..Respondent/De-facto Complainant (Respondents in-do-)

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC., praying that in the circumstances stated in the memo of grounds filed in Cri.P., the High Court may be pleased to stay of ail further proceedings in Crime No. 05/2021 of CID Police Station, Amaravathi, Mangaiagiri, Guntur District, including arrest of the petitioner, pending disposal of CRLP No. 1762 of 2021, on the file of the High Court.

IA. No. 1 of 2021:

Between:

Ponguru Narayana, s/o late Subbaramaiah, aged 63 years, R/o D.No.16-11-540, Haranadhapuram, 'st Lane, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh state. ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 (Petitioner in CRLP 1763 OF 2021 on the file of High Court) "

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station Executive Officer, CID PS, AP,

Amaravathi, Mangalagiri, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of -- ~

Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati ... Respondent/Complainant

2. Alla Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o Late Dasaradha Rami Reddy, Member of Legislative Assembly, Mangalagiri Assembly Constituency, Near , Auto Nagar, Gowthambudha Road, Mangalagiri, Guntur District-522503, AP ...Respondent/De-facto Complainant (Respondents in-do-)

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memo of grounds filed in Cri.P., the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in Crime No.5/2021 of CID Police Station, Amaravathi, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, including arrest of the petitioner, pending disposal of CRLP No. 1763 of 2021, on the file of the High Court.

These petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memo of grounds filed in Crl.P., and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sidhrath Luthra Senior Counsel for Sri Ginjupalli Subba Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner in Cril.P.No. 1762 of 2021, and Sri Dammalapati Srinivas Senior Counsel for M/s S Pranathi, Advocate for the Petitioner in Cri.P.No. 1763 of 2021 and of Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1 in both petitions, the Court made the following

RoE The petitioners in both the above Criminal Petitions are Al and A2 in Crime No.5 of 2021 of C.I.D. Police Station, A.P., Amaravati, Mangalagiri. They have filed the Criminal Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quash of the said F.I.R. registered against them and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 217, 120-B r/w. Secs.34, 35, 36 and 37 of IPC; Section 3(1)(f),(g) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; and Section 7 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.

This is yet another case pertaining to the land dispute arising out of acquisition of lands under land pooling scheme introduced under the A.P. Capital Regional Development Authority Act, 2014, (for short, the "A.P. CRDA Act") for establishing a capital city for the present State of Andhra Pradesh.

The 2nd respondent, who is the de facto complainant, is the sitting Member of Legislative Assembly of Mangalagiri Assembly Constituency. He belongs to the present ruling party. He lodged a report with the Additional General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Mangalagiri of Andhra Pradesh, on | 24.02.2021, stating that the erstwhile combined State of Andhra Pradesh, which was originally constituted under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, was bifurcated into two States i.e. the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh under the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 and the present State of Andhra Pradesh was formed with effect from 02.06.2014 and in the General Assembly Elections held in the month of April, 2014 for the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh, Telugu Desam Party came into Rule and as there was no capital city for the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh that the said State Government has taken steps to establish a capital city and for that purpose,

the A.P. CRDA Act was brought into existence after approval of the Cabinet and

after the Bill was passed to that effect in the State Legislative Assembly in the month of September, 2014. It is stated that concept of land pooling was also introduced under the said Act to acquire lands from the peasants and others for the said purpose and accordingly, the lands were acquired.

It is stated that recently some farmers, who are named in his report, approached him stating that the lands assigned to them have also been illegally acquired for the said purpose by making false representations that they can manage to get compensation from the Government and thereby acquired the lands without paying any compensation and that loss was caused to them in this regard.

It is also stated in the said report that the then Chief Minister of the State Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu, brought G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 17.02.2016 incorporating guidelines for acquiring the assigned lands and_ this G.O.Ms.No.41 was illegally brought into existence in contravention of the prevailing procedure to benefit the close associates of the then Chief Minister and consequently, the assignees were put to loss.

Therefore, he requested to conduct in-depth investigation into the matter by the police.

The Additional Director General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, after considering the contents of the said report lodged by the M.L.A., entrusted the matter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Vijayawada, for preliminary investigation. Accordingly, the said Officer has conducted a preliminary investigation and he has submitted his report. Based on the said report, the present F.I.R. came to be registered against the petitioners on 12.03.2021.

Now the petitioners, who are (1) the then Chief Minister and the present Opposition Leader and (2) the Minister for Municipal Administration for the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh, seek quash of the said F.I.R. on the ground that the facts of the case do not constitute any offences against them for which the F.1.R. was registered and the case has been foisted, out of

political rivalry by the present State Government and the de facto complainant,

who is the M.L.A., who also belongs to the present Ruling Party and as such, the present case is an outcome of political vendetta. They sought quash of the F.I.R. also mainly on the ground that since the prosecution pertains to the acts purported to have been done by the petitioners in pursuance of the A.P. CRDA Act for the purpose of establishing a capital city and to acquire lands for the said purpose, protection is provided to them from prosecution under Section 146 of the A.P. CRDA Act and specific bar is imposed under the said Act to prosecute any Authority, officer, or person in respect of any act done or purported to have been done by them under the said Act or in pursuance of the said Act or the Rules or Standing Orders made under the said Act. Therefore, the present prosecution is not maintainable against them under law. |

Learned Senior Counsel Sri Sidharth Luthra, appearing for A-1, would submit that the facts of the case and the allegations set out in the F.I.R. do not at all constitute any offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 217, 120-B r/w. Secs.34, 35, 36 and 37 of IPC; Section 3(1)(f},(g) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; and Section 7 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, for which the F.I.R. is registered and even in the preliminary investigation report also no role was attributed to the petitioners in both the Criminal Petitions regarding any such offences said to have been committed by them. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel Sri Sidharth Luthra would submit that the launching of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law besides being malicious in nature.

He then would vehemently contend that in view of the express bar engrafted under Section 146 of the AP CRDA Act, as the main allegation is that the petitioners have brought G.O.Ms.No.41 to acquire lands for the purpose of establishing capital city in contravention of the Business Rules, the said acts are clearly protected under Section 146 of the A.P. CRDA Act and they cannot be prosecuted for any such acts done or purported to have been done under the said Act. So, he would contend that the present prosecution is not at all

maintainable under law.

Learned Senior Counsel Sri Dammalapati Srinivas appearing for A-2 would submit that a reading of the contents of the F.I.R. shows that, as per the Note File, the proposal for bringing out the said G.O.Ms.No.41 was initiated by Sri Kantilal Dande, I.A.S., who is the Collector, and thereafter, on completion of the entire process at various levels that the matter was finally placed before the then Chief Minister and the Minister for Municipal Administration Department for approval which clearly indicates that both the petitioners are not the persons responsible for initiating the process of bringing out the said G.O. He would submit that the G.O. was placed before the petitioners only at the final stage for approval. Therefore, he would submit that no offence is made out against these petitioners even from the contents of the F.1.R. He would aiso reiterate that in view of the bar contained in Section 146 of the A.P. CRDA Act that the present prosecution against the petitioners is not maintainable. |

Learned Additional Advocate General Sri Jasthi Nagabhushan appearing for the 1st respondent State would submit that although the specific role of these two petitioners in violating the Business Rules relating to drafting and bringing into existence the G.O.Ms.No.41, is not mentioned either in the F.I.R. or in the preliminary investigation report, the fact remains established is that they are at the helm of affairs at the relevant time and as such they cannot shun their responsibility. So, the. matter requires investigation to find out the specific role played by them in bringing out the said G.O. and at this stage it cannot be held that they have no role to play in bringing out the said G.O. Learned Additional Advocate General would further contend that the material which is now placed before this Court would prima facie show that the Business Rules relating to drafting a G.O. has been grossly violated and it clearly indicates that the G.O. was issued in contravention of the procedure only to benefit the close associates of the petitioners herein which ultimately resulted into causing loss to the assignees of the land, who are landless poor people. Therefore, he would submit with all vehemence that in view of the seriousness of the allegations, the prosecution is to be allowed to proceed with the investigation to find out

truth or otherwise of the allegations set out in the F.I.R. He would further

submit that as the assignees, who sustained loss in the said process,, expressed their grievance before the de facto complainant, who is the sitting M.L.A. that he has lodged the report with the Police to cause enquiry into the matter and to take appropriate legal action in this regard. Therefore, learned Additional Advocate General opposed for grant of stay of investigation in the facts and circumstances of the case.

As regards the bar contained under Section 146 of the A.P. CRDA Act, which is mainly relied on by the learned Senior Counsel in both the Criminal Petitions, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the bar applies only when the acts are done by both the petitioners in good faith and as the present acts, are done by both the petitioners to do favour to their close associates, it cannot be said that they are protected under Section 146 of the Act. Therefore, the bar engrafted under Section 146 of the A.P. CRDA Act is not applicable to the facts of the case. He would also rely on Section 23 of the A.P. CRDA Act which relates to protection of acts done in good faith. So, according to him, Section 146 has to be read along with Section 23 and when it is shown that the acts are not done in good faith that the protection under Section 146 of the A.P. CRDA Act is not available to them.

In reply to the said argument, learned Senior Counsel Sri Sidharth Luthra would submit that it is not stated in Section 146 of the A.P. CRDA Act that the bar of prosecution applies only to the acts done in good faith. He would contend that as per the language employed in Section 146, since the protection is given to all acts, the present prosecution is clearly barred under law. He would submit that Section 23 cannot be read along with Section 146 of the A.P. CRDA Act and Section 23 is an independent provision and applies in a different context. He would submit that all acts are done by the petitioners in good faith in the larger interest of the public.

I have considered the above elaborate submissions made by both the learned Senior Counsel for both the petitioners and also the learned Additional

Advocate General for the 1st respondent-State.

The substance of the allegations as set out in the F.I.R. primarily show that some persons who are claiming to be assignees of the assigned lands expressed their grievance before the de facto complainant, who is the M.L.A., that the lands assigned to them were acquired for the purpose of establishing a capital city by making false representation to them that they would get compensation from the Government and no compensation was paid to them and they sustained loss in the said process and also that G.O.Ms.No.41 to acquire said lands was brought into existence by the authorities at the helm of affairs at that time to benefit some of the close associates of the then Chief Minister in contravention of the prevailing procedure.

So, the allegations primarily pertain to the alleged contravention of the procedure in the Business Rules meant for issuing G.O.Ms.No.41. Whether it amounts to any offence as alleged is a matter which is required to be decided in the main Criminal Petitions.

In this context, it is relevant to note that G.O.Ms.No.41 was issued long back in the year 2016. Till now the assignees or any person did not raise any demur whatsoever in this regard. They did not question the said G.O. in any Court of law. They also did not lodge any report with the Police for all this length of five years time alleging that they have been cheated in acquiring the lands assigned to them for the purpose of establishing a capital city by making any false representation either by the petitioners or by any person. Now, after lapse of about five years, according to the prosecution version, they approached the de facto complainant, who is an M.L.A. in the present ruling party, expressing grievance in this regard and he lodged the present report with the police on the basis of alleged grievance said to have been expressed before him by the assignees. The genuineness of the said F.I.R. which is now lodged by the M.L.A. is mainly questioned by the petitioners on the ground that he lodged the said report with the police against the petitioners, who are the former Chief Minister and present Leader of Opposition and the former Minister of Municipal Administration, to wreak their political vengeance out of malice against the

petitioners. The Court finds considerable force in the above contention raised

by the petitioners. When the assignees did not lodge any report with the police for all this length of five years period and even till today and when the report came to be lodged at the instance of the de facto complainant, who is an M.L.A. of the present ruling party, and when the validity of the said criminal proceedings launched on the basis of the said report is primarily questioned on the ground of malice and political vendetta, the matter requires examination in the main Criminal Petitions to ascertain whether the present case is the outcome of malice and political vendetta or not.

In this context, it is relevant to note the very recent and latest judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra ((2021) 2 SCC 427). The Apex Court held, while considering human liberty vis-a-vis public interest, that no doubt public interest requires that there should be a fair and due investigation of crime and that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. r/w. Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be sparingly and cautiously used to quash criminal proceedings. However, at the other end of the spectrum, it is also the duty of the Court to ensure that the criminal law does not become a weapon for harassment of citizens. Courts should be alive to both ends of the spectrum. Further held that, the misuse of the criminal law is a matter which the High Courts and lower Courts must be alive to.

Therefore, in the light of the law enunciated by the Apex Court explaining the duty of the Court while considering a quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that the Court must make an endeavour to ensure that criminal law does not become a weapon of harassment of citizens and the same is not misused, the aforesaid defence taken by the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of the political vendetta is required to be examined in detail in the main Criminal Petitions. Certainly, it is a fact to be considered in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

Further, as can be seen from the contents of the F.I.R. and also the

preliminary investigation report, prima facie no specific role is attributed to the

petitioners herein in contravening the said procedure or in committing any such offences for which the F.I.R. is registered. Apart from it, it is significant to note that Section 146 of the A.P. CRDA Act imposes a specific bar to prosecute any officer, authority or a person for the acts done or acts purported to have been done under the said Act are in pursuance of the said Act. For better appreciation, Section 146 of the A.P. CRDA Act is reproduced hereunder:

"S.146. Bar of Legal proceeding:- No suit, prosecution or the proceeding shall lie against the Government or Authority or officer or person for any act done or purporting to be done under or in pursuance of the Act or the rules or standing orders made thereunder."

Therefore, a bare perusal of the aforesaid Section makes it manifest that no prosecution shall lie against the Government or authority or officer or even any person for any act done or purported to have been done under the Act or in pursuance of the said Act or the Rules or the Standing Orders made thereunder. |

Now it is relevant to consider the authoritative judgment rendered by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal : (AIR 1992 SC 604 = 1992

--Supp.(1) SCC 335). About 7 grounds have been enumerated in the said judgment by the Supreme Court which justifies exercise of the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing the F.I.R. Ground No.6 is relevant in the context to consider. It says that when there is specific bar under the Act to initiate prosecution, it would be a valid ground to quash the F.I.R. It reads thus: |

"6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in_the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party."

Thus, the Apex Court clearly held that when there is an express legal bar engrafted in the concerned Act to prosecute a person for any such offence, it

affords a strong ground for quashing the F.I.R. Obvious reason is, when the

accused got immunity from any prosecution in a case where there is express legal bar under the Act, to prosecute them, the very prosecution launched against them would not be maintainable under law.

The facts of the case clearly show that the alleged acts complained against the petitioners pertain to the acts done in pursuance of the A.P. CRDA Act. The entire dispute revolves round and pertains to the lands acquired under the A.P. CRDA Act. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that prima facie the aforesaid bar under Section 146 of the A.P. CRDA Act clearly applies to the present facts of the case. Although the learned Additional Advocate General made his best efforts to convince the Court that the said bar applies only when the acts are done in good faith and not otherwise, the learned Senior Counsel Sri Sidharth Luthra would contend that there is nothing in the said Section to indicate that the said protection from the prosecution is applicable only to the acts done in good faith. Even otherwise, he would submit that there is nothing to indicate that the petitioners have not done the said acts in good faith. So, in view of the said rival contentions, the matter requires deep examination in the main Criminal Petitions whether the bar contained under Section 146 of the A.P. CRDA Act applies to the present facts of the case and whether the present prosecution is barred or not. This has to be finally adjudicated after the 1* respondent State files its detailed counter-affidavit explaining the same and also after the 294 respondent, who is the de facto complainant, makes his appearance. |

Therefore, prima facie, in view of the express bar engrafted under Section 146 of the A.P. CRDA Act, ultimately, if it is found that the bar applies to the present facts of the case, it goes to the very root of the matter and strikes at its bottom regarding the very maintainability of the prosecution against the petitioners.

As the State seeks to prosecute the petitioners mainly on the ground of alleged violation of Business Rules in issuing G.O.Ms.No.41, another important aspect which needs examination is, whether mere violation of Business Rules

in issuing a particular G.O. would constitute any offence without there being

any requisite mens rea or guilty intention on the part of the concerned, which is the basic principle of our criminal jurisprudence. At this stage, there is no reliable material on record to hold that the said acts in violating the Business Rules, even if any, in issuing the said G.O., would constitute an offence.

In view of the above, the petitioners could make out a strong prima facie case warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the main Criminal Petitions to examine whether the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioners herein in the above crime amounts to abuse of process of law or not.

Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that till the said question is decided after hearing both the parties, that there shall be an order of stay of investigation and other proceedings against the petitioners, who are Al and AQ, till the next date of hearing.

Therefore, there shall be stay of investigation and all further proceedings pursuant to the registration of F.I.R. in Crime No.5 of 2021 of C.I.D. Police Station, A.P., Amaravati, Mangalagiri, against the petitioners, who are Al and

A2, till the next date of hearing.

Sd/-P.Vinod Kumar ASSISTANT REGISTRAR VV Cuddhe Ban ITTRUE COPY// - SECTION OFFICER or

To,

4. The Addl. Director of General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Managalagir, Guntur District

2 The Station Executive Officer, CID PS, A.P. Amaravathi, Mangalagiri,

3. Alla Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o Late Dasaratha Rami reddy, Member of Legislative Assembly, .Mangalagiri Assembly Constituency, Near Auto Nagar, Gowthamabuddha Road, Mangalagiri, Guntur District - 522 503, Andhra Pradesh.( By RPAD)

4. Two CCs to Jasthi Nagabhushan, Addl. Advocate General, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati (OUT)

5. One CC to Sri. Ginjupalli Subba Rao Advocate [OPUC]

6. One CC to Mis s. Pranathi, Advocate (OPUC)

7. One spare copy

Skm

HIGH COURT

CMR,J

DATED:19/03/2021

ORDER

CRLP.Nos.1762 & 1763 of 2021

INTERIM STAY

et ey,