Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Kutala Venkatappa vs The Director General, on 1 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3955, 197, 433, 1376, 2211, 2253, 2451,
3808, 4308 and 4831 of 2021, 4469, 5844, 5958, 5985 of 2020 and
2066 of 2023
CRLP.No. 3955/2021
Between:
1. DAYAM PEDA RANGA RAO, S/O D.VEERA VENKATA RAO
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCC MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR
(MVI) O/o. THE DY.TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AND R/O FLAT NO.4, DEVI
MADHURAM ENCLAVE ABID NAGAR, AKKAYYAPALEM
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 530016
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, (RAYALASEERNA) ANTI-
CORRUPTION BUREAU, A.P, VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520013
2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL INVESTIGATION
UNIT (CIU) ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, A.P, VIJAYAWADA,
KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 520013
REPRESENTED BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ACB, A.P
HIGH COURT BUILDING AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. SRI GHANTA SRIDHAR
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. SRI S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB
The Court made the following:
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
SLP (Crl.).No.10737 of 2023, decided on 02.01.2025
This Court made the following:
//2//
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3955, 197, 433, 1376, 2211, 2253, 2451,
3808, 4308 and 4831 of 2021, 4469, 5844, 5958, 5985 of 2020 and
2066 of 2023
CRLP.No. 3955/2021
Between:
1. DAYAM PEDA RANGA RAO, S/O D.VEERA VENKATA RAO
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCC MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR
(MVI) O/o. THE DY.TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AND R/O FLAT NO.4, DEVI
MADHURAM ENCLAVE ABID NAGAR, AKKAYYAPALEM
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 530016
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, (RAYALASEERNA) ANTI-
CORRUPTION BUREAU, A.P, VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520013
2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL INVESTIGATION
UNIT (CIU) ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, A.P, VIJAYAWADA,
KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 520013
REPRESENTED BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ACB, A.P
HIGH COURT BUILDING AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 01.08.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may
be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of order may be marked
to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the order?
Yes/No
____________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
//3//
APHC010229762021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3955, 197, 433, 1376, 2211, 2253, 2451,
3808, 4308 and 4831 of 2021, 4469, 5844, 5958, 5985 of 2020 and
2066 of 2023
CRLP.No. 3955/2021
Between:
1. DAYAM PEDA RANGA RAO, S/O D.VEERA VENKATA RAO
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCC MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR
(MVI) 0/0 THE DY.TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AND R/O FLAT NO.4, DEVI
MADHURAM ENCLAVE ABID NAGAR, AKKAYYAPALEM
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 530016
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, (RAYALASEERNA) ANTI-
CORRUPTION BUREAU, A.P, VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520013
2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL INVESTIGATION
UNIT (CIU) ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, A.P, VIJAYAWADA,
KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 520013
REPRESENTED BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ACB, A.P
HIGH COURT BUILDING AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of
BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of
Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High CourtPleased to quash the
crime (F.I.R) No.15/RCA-CIU-ACB/2016 ,dt 22-10-2016,registered by
//4//
the Inspector of Police ,central Investigation Unit(CIU),Anti -Corruption
Bureau(ACB) ,Vijayawada for the offences U/s 13(1) (e) r/w 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 against the Petitioner/Accused
Officer (A.O) ,as it is not notified as a Police Station under section 2(s)
of Cr.P.C by the Government and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying
that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all
further proceedings in Crime (F.I.R) No. 15/RCA-ACB-CIU/2016, dated
22-10¬2016, registered by the Inspector of Police, Central Investigation
Unit (CIU), Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Andhra Pradesh,
Vijayawada, including appearance of the Petitioner / Accused Officer
and ad-interim attachment orders of properties, and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. GHANTA SRIDHAR
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB
The Court made the following:
//5//
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3955, 197, 433, 1376, 2211, 2253, 2451,
3808, 4308 and 4831 of 2021, 4469, 5844, 5958, 5985 of 2020 and
2066 of 2023
COMMON ORDER :
1. Criminal petition No.3955 of 2021 is taken up as the lead case in
the batch of petitions filed seeking quash of crimes registered by
Inspector of Police, Central Investigation Unit (CIU), ACB,
Vijayawada for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The primary ground for seeking quash of the crimes is that
Government has not notified Central Investigation Unit (CIU),
ACB, Vijayawada as a Police Station under Section 2(s) of
Cr.P.C., as on the date of registration of crimes.
2. This Court while admitting the matters directed the investigating
officer not to file charge sheet until further orders from the Court.
The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that the Joint Director, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada
issued authorization proceedings to the Inspector of Police CIU,
ACB, AP, Vijayawada to register a case against the petitioners
under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as “PC Act“).
//6//
3. On the strength of the authorization proceedings of the Joint
Director, the inspector of Police, CIU, ACB, AP, Vijayawada
registered the following cases ;
S. CRLP.Nos. Authorization Crime Section of Nature of
No. Details Number Law offence
1. 3955 of 2021 No.19/RCA- 15/RCA-CIU- 13(2) read Disproportionate
CIU/2016, ACB/2016, with assets
dt. 19.10.2016 dt.22.10.2016 13(1)(e)
of PC Act
2. 4308 of 2021 No.10/RCA/JD 2/RCA-CIU- 13(1)(b) Disproportionate
(R)/2020 ACB/2020, of PC Act assets
dt. 05.03.2020 dt.09.03.2020
3. 3808 of 2021 No.11/JD(R)- 06/RCA-CIU- 13(1)(b) Disproportionate
ACB/20158, ACB/2018, read 13(2) assets
dt. 27.10.2018 dt.01.11.2018 o f the PC
ACt
4. 2451 of 2021 No.20/JD(R)- 15/RCA-CIU- 13(1)(e) Disproportionate
ACB/2017, ACB/2017, read with assets
dt.15.11.2017 dt.16.11.2017 13(2) of
the PC
Act
5. 2253 of 2021 No.20/JD(R)- 15/RCA-CIU- 13(1)(e) Disproportionate
ACB/2017, ACB/2017, read with assets
dt.15.11.2017 dt.16.11.2017 13(2) of
the PC
Act
6. 2211 of 2021 No.20/JD(R)- 15/RCA-CIU- 13(1)(e) Disproportionate
ACB/2017, ACB/2017, read with assets
dt.15.11.2017 dt.16.11.2017 13(2) of
the PC
Act
7. 1376 of 2021 No.08/JD(R)- 08/RCA-CIU- 13(1)(b) Disproportionate
ACB/2018, ACB/2018, read with assets
dt.27.12.2018 dt.28.12.2018 13(2) of
the PC
Act
8. 433 of 2021 No.17/JD(R)- 03/RCA-CIU- 13(1)(b) Disproportionate
ACB/2017, ACB/2017, read with assets
dt.14.03.2017 dt.16.03.2017 13(2) of
the PC
Act
//7//
9. 2066 of 2023 No.01/RCA/CI 01/2017, 13(1)(b) Disproportionate
U/2017 dt.04.01.2017 read with assets
dt.03.010.2017 13(2) of
the PC
Act
10. 4831 of 2021 No.19/RCA- 10/RCT-ACB- 13(1)(e) Disproportionate
JD/(R)/2017, CIU/2017, read with assets
dt.17.01.2017 dt.19.09.2017 13(2) of
the PC
Act
11. 5958 of 2020 NO.136/RCA- 16/2016, 13(2)read Disproportionate
CIU/2016 - dt.02.11.2016 with assets
S.16, 13(1)(e)
dt.17.01.2017 of the PC
Act
12. 4469 of 2020 No.10/JD(R)- 08/RCA-CIU- 13(1)(e) Disproportionate
ACB/2017, ACB/2017, read with assets
Dt.16.06.2017 dt.17.06.2017 13(2) of
PC Act
13. 5844 of 2020 11/JD(R)- 09/RCA-CIU- 13(1)(e) Disproportionate
ACB/2017, ACB/2017, read with assets
dt.21.06.2017 dt.21.06.2017 13(2) of
PC Act
14. 5985 of 2020 7/JD(R)- 05/RCA-CIU- 13(1)(e) Disproportionate
ACB/2017, ACB/2017, read with assets
dt.04.05.2017 dt.05.05.2017 13(2) of
PC Act
15. 197 of 2021 03/JD(R) 01/RCA-CIU- 13(1)(e) Disproportionate
ACB/2019, ACB/2019, read with assets
dt.19.02.2019 dt.19.02.2019 13(2) of
PC Act
4. Sri.G.Rama Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners are targeted and cases
alleging possession of assets disproportionate to the known
sources of income and submits baseless complaints were
registered on the motivated complaints. It is submitted that the
ACB authorities have tagged along the assets which are standing
//8//
on the names of parents of the petitioners, wives of the
petitioners, family members etc., though there is no co-relation to
the allegations and the assets of the family members of the
petitioners.
5. It is submitted that as on the date of registration of the FIRs which
are under challenge by the petitioners, the Central Investigation
Unit (CIU), Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Andhra Pradesh,
Vijayawada was not notified as a police station by the State.
Section 2(o) of Cr.P.C., defines Officer Incharge of the Police
Station. Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C., defines a Police Station.
6. It is submitted that none of the cases could have been registered
against the petitioners without notifying CIU, ACB, Vijayawada,
Andhra Pradesh as a Police Station. It is submitted that
GOMs.No.268 HOME (PSC) DEPARTMENT, dated 12.09.2003
has notified various offices of ACB as police stations and Joint
Director (Andhra), Hyderabad had jurisdiction over Srikakulam,
Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam, East Godavari, West Godavari,
Krishna and Guntur District.
7. It is submitted that Joint Director, ACB, Rayalaseema, Hyderabad
had jurisdiction over Prakasam, Nellore, Chittoor, Kadapa,
Ananthapur and Kurnool Districts. Joint Director, Central
Investigating Unit, ACB, Hyderabad had jurisdiction over the entire
//9//
state of Andhra Pradesh. That apart, 13 Deputy Superintendents
of Police in ACB in 13 Districts of the State were notified as Police
Stations. Inspectors of Police in ACB in the Districts were not
notified as Police Stations under Section 2(S) of Cr.P.C.,
8. It is submitted that proceedings of authorization under Section 17
of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) could not have been
issued by the Joint Director, (Rajayalaseema) Anti Corruption
Bureau, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada without being notified as a
police station. It is also submitted that authorization proceedings
to the Inspector of Police, CIU, AP, Vijayawada could not have
been issued as the Inspector of Police cannot be considered as
an Officer reporting under his jurisdiction without notifying the
Inspector of Police, CIU, AP, Vijayawada as a police station.
9. It is submitted that the Inspector of Police also without realizing
that an FIR could not have been registered without the notifying
his office as a police station under Section 2(S) of Cr.P.C., It is
also submitted that the Deputy Director, CIU, ACB, AP,
Hyderabad is of the Rank of Additional Superintendent of Police
and would not be empowered to issue authorization proceedings
to register disproportionate assets case. Section 17 of Prevention
of Corruption Act, an officer not below the Rank of Superintendent
of Police should issue authorization proceedings. It is submitted
//10//
that after re-organization of the State and before shifting of the
offices of ACB to Vijayawada in June, 2016, there was no post of
Joint Director, CIU, ACB, AP, Vijayawada was in existence. It is
also submitted that after reorganization of the state and bifurcation
of ACB as ACB, AP and ACB, Telangana. The post of Joint
Director, CIU, ACB for the State of Andhra Pradesh is not
continued at Hyderabad.
10. The learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioners
gathered information under the RTI Act from the Deputy Director,
CIU and PIO (RTI Act), ACB, AP, Vijayawada regarding notifying
of new police stations in ACB. It was categorically stated in the
reply letter C.No.2/RTI/2020, dated 29.01.2020, that the
Government of Andhra Pradesh has not notified any new
Post/Office in ACB as Police Station after reorganization of the
State with effect from 02.06.2014.
11. It is submitted that the said information makes it amply clear that
the Inspector of Police, (CIU), ACB, Vijayawada did not exist as a
Police Station as on the date of registration of any of the crimes. It
is submitted that the information that all officers of ACB are
notified as Police Stations under GOMs.No.268, dt.12.09.2003 is
neither correct nor in accordance with the required procedure. It is
submitted that as per GOMs.No.268, the Deputy Superintendents
//11//
of Police of 13 Districts of Andhra Pradesh were notified as Police
Stations and DSPs of CIU, ACB, AP, Vijayawada were not notified
as Police Stations.
12. It is also submitted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has
not issued any Orders/Gazette notification duly adopting
GOMs.No.268 by incorporating the necessary modifications as is
mandatory under Section 101 of AP Reorganization, Act, 2014. It
is also submitted that after reorganization the ACB Court at
Hyderabad was allotted to Government of Telangana and CIU,
ACB, AP, Vijayawada cannot file applications before ACB Court at
Hyderabad after reorganization.
13. Registration of FIR on the file of a Non-existing police station is
void ab-initio. It is submitted that the hierarchy of the Police
Department such as CID, Intelligence and SIB above the rank of
Deputy Superintendent of Police is as follows ;
Addl.SP > SP > DIG > IG > Addl.DG > and DG
14. Whereas, in ACB, the above DSP, the hierarchy of officers is as
follows ;
DD > JD > Addl.Dir > Director > Addl.DG/DG
15. It is submitted that there are no orders on records as on date
which notify the cadre of a Joint Director in ACB as equivalent to
//12//
the cadre of Superintendent of Police. It is submitted that after the
reorganization of the State, the Director General of Police, AP had
requested the Government to issue orders for declaring the office
as Crime Investigation Department (CID) as a police station for
the entire state of Andhra Pradesh. The Government also issued
proceedings for shifting the police station from Hyderabad to
Amaravathi. So also, permission was accorded for shifting Cyber
Crime Police Station from Hyderabad to Amaravathi and
Government Orders were issued for shifting of the Offices. It is
also submitted that GOMs.No.8, dated 09.01.2019 has notified
Central Crime Stations as a Police Station. So also, Special
Investigation Team (SIT), vide GORt.No.344 General
Administration (SCD) Department, dated 21.02.2020 was notified
to investigate into various procedural, legal, financial, irregularities
and fraudulent transactions and SIT would function as a Police
Station, the same is notified vide GOMs.No.35, dated 24.02.2020.
16. It is further submitted that the Special Courts for ACB Cases
could not have entertained applications from CIU, ACB, AP,
Vijayawada for grant of warrants of Search and Seizure, remand,
attachment orders etc., It is submitted that the Courts could not
have been approached for cases registered on the file of an un-
notified police station(s).
//13//
17. It is also submitted that, the petitioners have been victimized and
were falsely implicated at the behest of some vested interest who
have addressed frivolous complaints with untrue allegations.
Registration of crimes against the petitioners has derailed the
petitioners career and service records. That apart, registration of
false cases against the petitioners resulted in loss of reputation
and credibility of the petitioners in the society.
18. It is submitted that the respondent/authorities could not have
registered a case against the petitioners in the first instance and
subsequently resorting to arresting the petitioners and remanding
them to judicial custody. When the police station itself was not
notified the respondents had no basis or foundation for registering
a case and investigating the case and building up a case against
the petitioners without the foundation.
19. The learned Advocate General appears for the State and
submits that the petitions are not maintainable and that after the
reorganization of the state. The laws existing as on the date of
reorganization and the laws, circulars, memo existing as on the
date of bifurcation on the United State of Andhra Pradesh was
duly deemed adopted under Section 101 of the Andhra Pradesh
State Reorganization Act, 2014. It is also submitted that Section
//14//
105 of the AP Reorganization Act would also have to be read as
applicable to the facts of this case.
20. It is submitted that GOMs.No.268, dated 12.09.2003 notified the
various officers of Anti Corruption Bureau as Police Stations and
the jurisdiction of the police stations were also notified. It is
submitted that Joint Director CIU, ACB, Hyderabad and Joint
Director, Special Enquiry Section, ACB, Hyderabad is a notified
police station exercising jurisdiction over the entire state of Andhra
Pradesh.
21. The learned Advocate General further submits that non-shifting
of the offices physically from Hyderabad soon after the bifurcation
of the State should not have any bearing on the pending cases. It
is also submitted that mere irregularity in registration of case
cannot vitiate the investigation done so far. It is also submitted
that the petitioners would have to establish grave and irreparable
prejudice in the investigation conducted. In absence of any direct
prejudice to the petitioners, the criminal proceedings cannot be
quashed.
22. It is submitted that the petitioners cannot seek for quash of cases
at the threshold without investigation. The continued reliance of
the petitioners on technicalities seeking quash of proceedings on
mere technicalities ought not to be entertained.
//15//
23. It is submitted that cases were registered only after receipt of
complaints and only after preparation of source report. It is
submitted that source reports are verified by senior officers and
only after subjective satisfaction, the senior officers would accord
authorization proceedings for registering a case.
24. It is specifically denied that Deputy Director, who is the rank of
Additional Superintendent of Police has ever issued authorization
proceedings to register cases and that the Joint Director is of the
Rank of a Superintendent of Police and the authorization
proceedings were properly issued by the competent officer.
25. It is further submitted that GOMs.No.170, which was issued one
day prior the appointed date and that the same would be
applicable to the state of Telangana and the state of Andhra
Pradesh.
26. It is submitted that the petitioners are harping on non-notification
of CIU, ACB, AP, Vijayawada as a police station would not have
any bearing on the cases filed against the petitioners, as the
Director General, ACB, AP was shifted to Vijayawada and CIU,
ACB is a part of DGP, ACB. It is submitted that Joint Director,
CIU, ACB is already declared as a police station vide
GOMs.No.268, dated 12.09.2003.
//16//
27. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate General that the
petitioners are facing serious allegations under the Prevention of
Corruption Act and that the respondent authorities have ample
evidence to prove the allegations against the petitioners before
the Trial Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitions be
dismissed. The learned Advocate General places reliance on The
State, Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. A.Satish Kumar &
Ors.1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the SLP filed by the
CBI. The High Court of AP quashed the cases primarily on the
ground that the state had not extended the jurisdiction of CBI by a
notification. The State had also not notified the Court having
jurisdiction, as such, had quashed the cases. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court had dealt in detail and allowed the appeals and
restored the cases to files. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that the High Court had erred in holding that there was no
notification issued conferring the status of Special Court in terms
of Section 4 of the PC Act to the CBI Court, Hyderabad. Now, the
transfer of cases concerned subsequent to the CBI Policy Division
Order redefining the territorial jurisdiction of CBI, Hyderabad and
Visakhapatnam branches dated 28.03.2019 and a subsequent
notification was issued by High Court of Telangana and transfer of
1 SLP (Crl.).No.10737 of 2023, decided on 02.01.2025
//17//
cases to the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool was
upheld by the High Court.
28. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in reply
submits that the fundamental issue relating to non-notification of
the police station and the locus of the complaints filed in a non-
notified police station is not effectively replied by the state.
29. It is submitted that section 154(1) of Cr.P.C., refers to Officer
Incharge of a police station. It is submitted that the FIR registered
against the petitioners refers to ACB, CIU, Vijayawada as a police
station and the Inspector who registered the case also endorses
his signature as if Anti Corruption Bureau, AP, Vijayawada is a
notified police station.
30. It is submitted that GOMs.No.137, dated 14.09.2022 notified
CIU, ACB, AP, Vijayawada as a police station with jurisdiction
over entire state of Andhra Pradesh and a clarification notification
was issued. It is admittedly stated in the said GO that the state
has not issued any notification by notifying the office of Joint
Director, Central Investigation Unit, Anti Corruption Bureau,
Vijayawada as a police station having jurisdiction to the residual
state of Andhra Pradesh.
//18//
31. It is submitted that the clarification notification cannot rectify the
fundamental mistake and it is submitted that the cases registered
against the petitioners deserve to be quashed as they are
registered without any authority. The illogical registration of cases
would have to be quashed as there is no basic foundation for the
respondent/authorities to direct registration of cases in a police
station which is not notified.
32. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, learned
Advocate General for the respondents. Perused the material on
record.
33. The judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate General
(supra1) cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case as the
Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue relating to the cases
which were transferred from Hyderabad to the jurisdictional state
in the Andhra Pradesh and has duly considered that the
notification which was issued subsequently by the High Court of
Telangana was considered as a rectifiable mistake. On the facts
of the present criminal petitions, the registration of crimes at a
place which is neither declared generally nor notified specially as
a police station could not have registered the cases. The
subsequent notification dated 14.09.2022 notifying CIU, ACB, AP,
//19//
Vijayawada as a police station cannot rectify the fundamental
error committed by the respondents.
The relevant provisions of Cr.P.C., which clear the air on the issue are
as follows ; Section 154(1) Cr.P.C., reads as follows ;
154 (1) Information in cognizable cases.
1. (1)Every information relating to the commission of a
cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer-in-
charge of a police station, shall be reduced to
writing by him or under his direction, and be read
over to the informant; and every such information,
whether given in writing or reduced to writing as
aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it,
and the substance thereof shall be entered in a
book to be kept by such officer in such form as the
State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
[Provided that if the information is given by the
woman against whom an offence under section
326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A,
section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section
376, [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B,
section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section
376DB,] [Inserted by Criminal Law (Amendment)
Act, 2013 ] section 376E or section 509 of the
Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been
committed or attempted, then such information shall
be recorded, by a woman police officer or any
woman officer:
Provided further that-
(a)in the event that the person against whom an
offence under section 354, section 354A, section
354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376,
[section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B,
section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section
376DB,] [Substituted ‘section 376A, section 376B,
section 376C, section 376D,’ by Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 2018 (22 of 2018), dated
11.8.2018.] section 376E or section 509 of the
Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been
committed or attempted, is temporarily or
permanently mentally or physically disabled, then
//20//such information shall be recorded by a police
officer, at the residence of the person seeking to
report such offence or at a convenient place of such
person’s choice, in the presence of an interpreter or
a special educator, as the case may be;
(b)the recording of such information shall be video-
graphed;
(c)the police officer shall get the statement of the
person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under
clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164 as
soon as possible.](2)
A copy of the information as recorded under sub-
section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to
the informant.
(3)Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of
an officer-in-charge of a police station to record the
information referred to in sub-section (1) may send
the substance of such information, in writing and by
post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned
who, if satisfied that such information discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence, shall either
investigate the case himself or direct an
investigation to be made by any police officer
subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this
Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of
an officer-in-charge of the police station in relation
to that offence.
34. Investigation of any case would have to start on receipt of a
complaint. The complaint would have to be lodged before a
police officer who is the incharge of a police station. For setting
the criminal law in motion the following are essential ;
(a) complaint
(b) office incharge of police station
(c) Police Station.
35. Section 2(d) defines a complaint as (d) “complaint” means any
allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to
his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether
//21//
known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not
include a police report.
Explanation–A report made by a police officer in a case
which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-
cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the
police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to
be the complainant;,
Section 2(o) defines as “officer in charge of a police station”
includes, when the officer in charge of the police station is
absent from the station-house or unable from illness or other
cause to perform his duties, the police officer present at the
station-house who is next in rank to such officer and is above the
rank of constable or, when the State Government so directs, any
other police officer so present;
Section 2(s) defines as “police station” means any post or place
declared generally or specially by the State Government,
36. A complaint would have to be lodged before the officer incharge
of a police station for setting the criminal law in motion. Every
and any place cannot be considered or regarded as a police
station without the said place being declared generally or
specially by the State Government. Such declaration ought to be
in the form of a notification, such a notification ought to be
published in the official gazette.
37. No police officer can assume jurisdiction as a officer incharge of
a police station which is not notified in the official gazette. The
police officer cannot discharge the role of an officer incharge of a
police station which is not notified. Such a police officer cannot
//22//
also register a case in a place/office which is neither declared
nor notified as a police station.
38. The concept of registering a zero FIR is distinct for the FIRs
registered in the jurisdictional police stations. The victim can
register a case in any police station irrespective of the
jurisdiction. Such zero FIR would be sent to the jurisdictional
police station for further investigation.
39. The cases on hand are distinct from zero FIRs. The FIRs were
registered in a place/office which was not declared generally or
specially by the State Government to be a police station. As
such, the office where the crimes were registered against the
petitioners cannot be considered as a police station defined
under Section 2(s) of the Cr.P.C.,
40. The notification issued by the State on 14.09.2022 duly notifying
Central Investigation Unit Anti Corruption Bureau Andhra
Pradesh, Vijayawada as a police station with jurisdiction over
entire state of Andhra Pradesh and issuance of GOMs.No.137,
HOME (SERVICES-III) DEPARTMENT, dated 14.09.2022
cannot come to the rescue of the state in maintaining the
complaints registered against the petitioners much prior to
14.09.2022.
//23//
41. The clarification issued by the state in GOMs.No.137, dated
14.09.2022 that the office of Joint Director, CIU, ACB, AP,
Vijayawada, shall be construed as a police station with
jurisdiction extending to the entire state of Andhra Pradesh,
corresponding to the office of Joint Director, Central Investigation
Unit, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad in relation to State of
Telangana also cannot come to the rescue of the state.
Section 102 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014
reads as follows ;
Section 102 : Power to construe laws. – Notwithstanding that
no provision or insufficient provision has been made under
Section 101 for the adaptation of a law made before the
appointed day, any Court, Tribunal or authority, required or
empowered to enforce such law may, for the purpose of
facilitating its application in relation to the State of Andhra
Pradesh or the State of Telangana, construe the law in such
manner, without affecting the substance, as may be
necessary or proper in regard to the matter before the court,
Tribunal or authority.
42. The State in issuing the GOMs.No.137 HOME (SERVICES – III)
DEPARTMENT, dated 14.09.2022 has effectively notified CIU,
ACB, AP, Vijayawada as a police station with jurisdiction over the
entire state of Andhra Pradesh. Thus, powers conferred under
Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C., have been exercised by the State in
notifying it as a police station. The said GO is prospective in
effect and the same cannot aid the respondents in maintaining
any of the cases registered prior to the date of notification i.e.,
14.09.2022.
//24//
43. All the crimes were registered by Inspector of Police, CIU, ACB,
AP, Vijayawada prior to 14.09.2022, the date of notification of
CIU, ACB, AP, Vijayawada as a designated police station having
jurisdiction over the entire state of Andhra Pradesh. As such, all
the crimes registered prior to notifying CIU, ACB, AP,
Vijayawada as a police station deserve to be quashed.
44. Accordingly, all the criminal petitions are allowed and accordingly
Crime Nos. 15/RCA-CIU-ACB/2016, dt.22.10.2016,
2/RCA-CIU-ACB/2020, dt.09.03.2020,
06/RCA-CIU-ACB/2018, dt.01.11.2018,
15/RCA-CIU-ACB/2017, dt.16.11.2017,
15/RCA-CIU-ACB/2017, dt.16.11.2017,
15/RCA-CIU-ACB/2017, dt.16.11.2017,
08/RCA-CIU-ACB/2018, dt.28.12.2018,
03/RCA-CIU-ACB/2017, dt.16.03.2017,
01/2017, dt.04.01.2017,
10/RCT-ACB-CIU/2017, dt.19.09.2017,
16/2016, dt.02.11.2016
08/RCA-CIU-ACB/2017, dt.17.06.2017
9/RCA-CIU-ACB/2017, dt.21.06.2017,
05/RCA-CIU-ACB/2017, dt.05.05.2017
01/RCA-CIU-ACB/2019, dt.19.02.2019 are hereby quashed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Dated 01.08.2025
KGM
//25//
27
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3955, 197, 433, 1376, 2211, 2253, 2451,
3808, 4308 and 4831 of 2021, 4469, 5844, 5958, 5985 of 2020 and
2066 of 2023
Dated 01.08.2025
KGM