Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Sri. Y.V. Subba Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: Crl.P.No.6283 OF 2025, 6409 OF 2025, 6410 OF 2025
& 6411 OF 2025
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
03. 01.7.2025 CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6283 of 2025,
6409 of 2025, 6410 of 2025 and 6411 of
2025
Notice to unofficial respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) is
permitted to take out personal notice to
unofficial respondent by RPAD and file proof
of service thereof, into the Registry within two
weeks.
2. The petitioners in these Criminal
Petitions are arrayed as accused in crime
No.640 of 2025 of Nallapadu police station,
Guntur district. They filed the respective
Criminal Petitions seeking to quash the
proceedings in the aforesaid crime against
them.
3. Since all the Criminal Petitions
arise out of same crime, common order is
being passed in all the Criminal Petitions.
2
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
4. Pursuant to a report dated
18.06.2025 lodged by one Smt. Chili Lurdu
Mery, originally, the aforesaid case was
registered for the offence punishable under
Section 106 (1) BNS. The allegations in the
report lodged by her are that on 18.06.2025
at about 9.00 AM, her husband Singaiah left
their house stating that either he would go to
his work or he would go to see Sri Y.S.Jagan
Mohan Reddy who was visiting Rentapadu of
Sattenapalli mandal on that day; that her
brother Sarath Kumar received a phone call
stating that the said Singaiah met with an
accident and was lying near Anjaneyaswamy
idol situated in Etukuru by-pass road with
injuries, and on that, when the informant,
along with her brother and son, were
proceeding to the said place, her brother
received a phone call stating that the injured
was being taken to Government General
Hospital, Guntur in Ambulance and they
were asked to come to the Hospital; that
when they reached the GGH, Guntur, they
found that the injured succumbed to the
injuries.
3
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE
5. After lapse of four days, basing on
the statement of one Nimmakayala Durga
Rao dated 22.6.2025, the Section of law was
altered from Section 106 (1) BNS to Section
105 read with 49 BNS.
6. These cases came up for hearing
on 27.6.2025 for admission. On the said
date, the learned Advocate General appearing
for State sought time till Tuesday i.e.
01.07.2025. As the learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners
apprehended that there was threat of arrest
to the petitioners, this Court passed an Order
on that day directing not to take coercive
steps against the petitioners, and directed to
list the matter to today at the request of the
learned Advocate General. When the cases
came up today, the learned Advocate General
sought further time to rely upon certain
documents. It is settled proposition of law
that in a petition filed under Section 528
BNSS seeking to quash a proceedings, this
Court has to rely upon the averments
contained in the FIR or charge sheet, and
examine whether a prima facie case for the
4
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
offences alleged is made out or not, even if
entire accusations in the said documents are
accepted as true and correct.
7. Heard Sri S.Sriram, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners.
8. The learned senior counsel
submits that originally, pursuant to a report
lodged by wife of the deceased Singaiah, the
case was registered for the offence
punishable under Section 106 (1) BNS and
subsequently, basing on the statement of one
Durga Rao, the Section of law was altered
from Section 106 (1) BNS to Section 105 read
with 49 BNS and A.2 to A.6 were added. The
learned senior counsel submits that the even
accepting the entire accusations to be true,
the offence under Section 105 BNS would not
attract as against the petitioners. He
submits that the petitioners are only inmates
of the vehicle, and criminal liability cannot be
fastened on the inmates present in the
vehicle. He submits that the police launched
prosecution as against the driver of the
vehicle. The learned senior counsel submits
5
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
that in order to attract the offence punishable
under Section 105 read with 49 BNS, it is
essential that there should be intention on
the part of the petitioners to cause death of
the deceased, but because the petitioners
were inmates, there would not be any
intention or knowledge on their part to cause
death of the deceased.
9. This Court perused the statement
of Nimmakayala Durga Rao. It goes to show
that around 10.30 to 11.00 AM on the fateful
day, the former Chief Minister arrived in a
black car with pink stripes, in a convoy from
Tadepalli direction on the Highway; the
convoy stopped right at the place where he
was standing near divider; that all the
gathered party workers rushed towards him,
and on that, the former Chief Minister
stepped out and greeted the public; that at
that moment, while the car was turning left
towards service road, a man fell under the
front tyre of the car on driver’s side, and on
that, four persons, who were standing on the
convoy, got down and shifted the said person
beneath trees near divider. He further stated
that thereafter, the convoy proceeded
6
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
through the service road, and he went and
saw the injured person with bleeding multiple
injuries, and after some time, an Ambulance
arrived and took the injured to hospital. He
stated that he does not know the injured
person at that time and later he came to
know that the said person passed away. On
the strength of the said statement, police
altered the Section of law from Section 106
(1) BNS to Section 105 read with 49 BNS on
22.06.2025 at 19.30 hours.
10. During the course of investigation,
police secured security staff of the convoy of
the former Chief Minister and examined them
as L.Ws.2 to 17 and recorded their detailed
statements. It is stated by the investigating
officer in the Memo dated 25.6.2025 filed
before the Magistrate that as per the
statement of witnesses and the summing of
evidence, it is clear that A.1 to A.6 clearly
knew that while taking turn, due to speedy
driving, even though it is known that people
can die, if they fall under the car, A.2 to A.6
in the car instructed A.1 to drive faster, due
to which A.1 drove the car at high speed at
the crowded place, while taking turn, the
7
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
deceased fell under car of A.1 to A.6 as A.2 to
A.6 in the car hurrying A.1 to haste, though
the public raised screams to stop the car, A.1
drove the car without stopping, and the car
dragged the deceased for some distance, as a
result of which he sustained severe bleeding
injuries and died.
11. Section 105 BNS deals with
‘punishment for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder’. According to the said
Section, whoever commits culpable homicide
not amounting to murder, shall be punished
with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment
of either description for a term which shall
not be less than five years but which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine, if the act by which the death is caused
is done with the intention of causing death,
or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death, or with imprisonment for either
description for a term which may extend to
ten years and with fine, if the act is done with
the knowledge that it is likely to cause death,
but without any intention to cause death, or
to cause such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death.
8
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE
12. On this aspect, it is pertinent to
refer to a decision in Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther
& another v. State of Maharashtra1, wherein
the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus:
(paragraphs 17 & 17.3).
“17. Learned counsel for the
respondent has placed reliance on a
decision of this Court in Keshub
Mahindra (supra). However, on going
through the aforesaid judgment, we
are of the view that facts in Keshub
Mahindra and facts in the present
case are poles apart. Keshub
Mahindra arose out of the in-famous
Bhopal Gas tragedy. A highly
dangerous and toxic gas escaped
from a tank in the Bhopal factory
belonging to Union Carbide India
Limited. As a result of such leakage,
3828 human beings lost their lives;
18922 suffered permanent injuries;
7172 suffered temporary
disablement; 1313 suffered
temporary disablement caused by
permanent injuries; and permanent
partial disablement was suffered by
2680 persons. While 40 human
beings suffered from permanent total
disablement, a total of 2544 animals
died. Criminal proceedings were
initiated against the company and
officials belonging to the company.
Charges were framed under Sections
304 Part II/324/326/429 IPC read
with Section 35 IPC. Some of the
accused persons challenged such1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 520
9SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
framing of charge before the High
Court of M.P. at Jabalpur. However,
the High Court dismissed the
criminal revision application
whereafter the matter came up before
this Court. In Keshub Mahindra
(supra), this Court upon perusal of
the material on record held that
charges under Section 304 Part II,
324, 326 and 429 of IPC were not
attracted at all. Framing of such
charges against the concerned
accused persons fell short of even
prima-facie case. It was observed that
mere act of running a plant as per
permission granted by the authorities
would not be a criminal act. This
Court held that:
“20. …….Consequently in our
view taking the entire material
as aforesaid on its face value
and assuming it to represent
the correct factual position in
connection with the operation
of the plant at Bhopal on that
fateful night it could not be
said that the said material
even prima facie called for
framing of a charge against
the accused concerned under
Section 304 Part II IPC on the
specious plea that the said act
of the accused amounted to
culpable homicide only
because the operation of the
plant on that night ultimately
resulted in deaths of a
number of human beings and
cattle.”
10
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE
17.3. In so far facts of the present
case is concerned, the two deceased
employees of appellant No. 1 were
undertaking the work of decoration of
the front side of the shop. As part of
the said work, they were working on
the sign board which was
approximately at a height of 12 feet
from the ground level. For this
purpose, they were provided with an
iron ladder. While working on the
sign board, they were struck by
electricity as a result of which they
got electrocuted and fell down
resulting in multiple injuries leading
to their death. It was purely
accidental. On these basic facts, no
prima facie case can be said to be
made out against the appellants for
committing an offence under Section
304A IPC, not to speak of Section
304 Part II IPC. In any case, the Trial
Court only considered culpability of
the appellants qua Section 304 Part
II IPC as the committing Magistrate
had committed the case to the Court
of Sessions confining the allegations
against the appellant to Section 304
Part II IPC and not Section 304A
IPC.”
13. It is also pertinent to refer to
another decision in Neeharika Infrastructure
Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra &
others2, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held
thus: (paragraphs 33.17 & 33.18).
2 (2021) 19 SCC 401 11 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE
“33.17. Even in a case where the
High Court is prima facie of the
opinion that an exceptional case is
made out for grant of interim stay of
further investigation, after
considering the broad parameters
while exercising the powers under
Section 482CrPC and/or under
Article 226 of the Constitution of
India referred to hereinabove, the
High Court has to give brief reasons
why such an interim order is
warranted and/or is required to be
passed so that it can demonstrate
the application of mind by the Court
and the higher forum can consider
what was weighed with the High
Court while passing such an interim
order.”
14. In order to attract an offence of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder,
death must not have been caused with the
specific intention to kill or the knowledge that
the act would be likely to cause death in the
way that would constitute murder. On a
perusal of the complaint and other
documents which are integral part of the
complaint, taking them on their face value,
prima facie, no offence under Section 105 IPC
is made out. Admittedly, the petitioners
were only inmates of the car. There is
neither intention nor knowledge on their part
12
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
so as to bring the petitioners within the
ambit of Section 105 BNS.
15. Generally, this Court does not
show any indulgence at the stage of FIR, but
if the Court comes to the conclusion that no
prima facie case is made out even if entire
accusations are accepted as true and correct,
then there is no bar for this Court to interfere
at the stage of admission. The present case
on hand is one of such exceptional cases
where this Court feels that it would be
appropriate to indulge in passing orders.
16. In view of the foregoing reasons,
there shall be interim stay of all further
proceedings in crime No.640 of 2025 of
Nallapadu police station, Guntur district, in
respect of the petitioners.
Post after two weeks.
________
(SRK, J)
DRK