Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Thopudurthi Prakash Reddy vs The State Of Ap on 24 June, 2025
APHC010303612025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6201/2025
Between:
Thopudurthi Prakash Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State of AP and others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
M Bala Krishna
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
Public Prosecutor
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The criminal petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in
Cr.No.23 of 2025 dated 12.06.2025 of Ramagiri Police Station, registered for
the alleged offences under Sections 221, 223, 224, 292, 126(2), 196(1), 132,
351(3), 61(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity
‘the BNS’),.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the scene of
alleged offence at the time of the commission. Section 215 of ‘the BNSS.,’
2
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6201 of 2025
Dated 24.06.2025
bars the prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants for
offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in
evidence. Section 215 of ‘the BNSS.,’ mandates that no Court shall take
cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 206 to 223 of ‘the BNS’.
3. In this Case, the report has been lodged by a police constable. There is
no complaint in writing given to the Court having jurisdiction as mandated
under Section 215 of ‘the BNSS’.
4. The case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections
221, 222 and 223 of ‘the BNS.,’ including other sections. These three sections
are contemplated under Section 215 of ‘the BNSS’ as a bar for taking
cognizance.
5. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Kantamaneni Ravishankar v.
State of Andhra Pradesh1 at para No.86 held as under:
“86…Therefore, to register a crime against a person, who
disobeyed the ordinance, there must be a complaint from
public servant about the disobedience of ordinance. Hence,
the very registration of crime for the offence punishable under
Section 188 of I.P.C. is contrary to the settled law laid down by
the Apex Court and other High Courts (referred supra) and the
police officer is incompetent to register a crime for the offence
punishable under Section 188 of I.P.C. on the complaint of any
other person other than a public servant and any other person,
who is authorized by public servant. Consequently, registration
of crime against the petitioner is vitiated by irregularity.”
1
2020 SCC OnLine AP 726
3
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6201 of 2025
Dated 24.06.2025
6. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bandekar Brothers Private Limited
v. Prasad Vassudev Keni2 at para No.48 held as under:
“48. Equally important to remember is that if in the course of
the same transaction two separate offences are made out, for
one of which Section 195 CrPC is not attracted, and it is not
possible to split them up, the drill of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC
must be followed. Thus, in State of Karnataka v.
Hemareddy3, this Court referred to a judgment of the Madras
High Court (V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy. In r4) and approved its
ratio as follows: (Hemareddy case3, SCC pp.190-91, paras 7-
8)
“7…In the third case, Somasundaram, J., has observed:
(V.V.L Narasimhamurthy case4, SCC OnLine Mad)
‘The main point on which Mr Jayarama Ayyar
appearing for the petitioner seeks to quash this
committal is that on the facts an offence under Section
193 IPC is disclosed for which the court cannot 9 take
cognizance without a complaint by the court as provided
under Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure
Code. The first question which arises for consideration
is whether on the facts mentioned in the complaint, an
offence under Section 193 IPC is revealed. Section 193
reads as follows:
“193. Punishment for false evidence: Whoever
intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a
judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the
purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial
proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
“Fabrication of false evidence” is defined in Section 192. The
relevant portion of it is:
“Whoever causes any circumstance to exist
intending that such circumstance may appear in
evidence in a judicial proceeding and that such2
(2020) 20 SCC 1
3
(1981) 2 SCC 185: 1981 SCC (Cri) 395
4
V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy v. State, 1953 SCC OnLine Mad 236 : AIR 1955 Mad 237
4
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6201 of 2025
Dated 24.06.2025circumstance may cause any person who in such
proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence to
entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point
material to the result of such proceeding is said “to
fabricate false evidence”.
The effect of the allegations in the complaint preferred by the
complainant is that the petitioner has caused this will to come
into existence intending that such will may cause the Judge
before whom the suit is filed to form an opinion that the will is
a genuine one and, therefore, his minor daughter is entitled to
the property. The allegation, therefore, in the complaint will
undoubtedly fall under Section 192 IPC. It will, therefore,
amount to an offence under Section 193 IPC i.e. fabricating
false evidence for the purpose of being used in the judicial
proceeding. There is no doubt that the facts disclosed will also
amount to an offence under Sections 467 and 471 IPC. For
prosecuting this petitioner for an offence under Sections 467
and 471, a complaint by the court may not be necessary as
under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC a complaint may be made only
when it is committed by a party to any proceeding in any court.
Mr Jayarama Ayyar does not give up his contention that
the petitioner, though he appears only a guardian of the minor
girl, is still a party to the proceeding. But it is unnecessary to
go into the question at the present moment and I reserve my
opinion on the question whether the guardian can be a party to
a proceeding or not, as this case can be disposed of on the
other point viz. that when the allegations amount to an offence
under Section 193 IPC, a complaint of court is necessary
under Section 195(1)(a) CrPC and this cannot be evaded by
prosecuting the accused for an offence for which a complaint
of court is not necessary.”
8. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge
and hold that in cases where in the course of the same
transaction an offence for which no complaint by a court is
necessary under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a court is
necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it is not
possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the
accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld.”
5
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6201 of 2025
Dated 24.06.2025
7. A fair reading of the two judgments it is clear that even registration of
FIR is hit by Section 215 of ‘the BNSS.,’ as per judgment of Kantamaneni
Ravishankar and as per the judgment of Bandekar Brothers Private
Limited. If they are two separate offences made out for one of which Section
215 of ‘the BNSS’ (Section 195 of ‘the Cr.P.C‘) is not attracted if it is not
possible to split them up then the mandate under Section 215 of ‘the BNSS.,’
shall be followed.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in CBI v. Sashi balasubramanian5 wherein at para No.33 held as
under:
33…In any view of the matter, an immunity is granted only in
respect of offences purported to have been committed under
direct tax enactment or indirect tax enactment, but by no
stretch of imagination, the same would be granted in respect
of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. A person
may commit several offences under different Acts; immunity
granted in relation to one Act would not mean that immunity
granted would automatically extend to others. By way of
example, we may notice that a person may be prosecuted for
commission of an offfence in relation to property under the
Penal Code as also under another Act, say for example, the
Prevention of Corruption Act. Whereas charges under the
Prevention of Corruption Act may fail, no sanction having been
accorded therefore, the charges under the Penal Code would
not.”
9. It is held in Sashi balasubramanian supra that immunity granted only
in respect of offences allegedly committed under one enactment, the same
immunity would be granted in respect of offences under different enactment.
5
(2006) 13 SCC 252
6
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6201 of 2025
Dated 24.06.2025
10. Indeed, in this case, there are no offences allegedly made out under the
different enactments all the offences alleged are under Section 215 ‘the
BNSS’. Therefore, the judgment is not much helpful to the prosecution.
11. Be that as it may, this is not at the stage of final hearing of the criminal
petition. The matter is required to be heard in detail.
12. In view of the embargo under Section 215 of ‘the BNSS.,’ registration of
a case under Sections 221, 222 and 223 of ‘the BNS.,’ is hit by Section 215 of
‘the BNSS.,’ inasmuch there is no proper complaint as contemplated under
Section 215 of ‘the BNSS’. Therefore, there shall be stay all further
proceedings in Cr.No.23 of 2025 dated 12.06.2025 of Ramagiri Police Station,
for two (02) weeks against the present petitioner only. The police are at liberty
to proceed to take up investigation to its logical conclusion against the other
accused.
13. List on 15.07.2025.
_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Dated:24.06.2025
Note:
Issue C.C by 25.06.2025
By
KMS