Absence of Written Public Complaint Vitiates Cognizance for Disobeying Public Order: Andhra Pradesh HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of assaulting a public servant and violating lockdown norms, ruling that the mandatory procedure for initiating prosecution under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code was not followed. Justice Sunitha Gandham held that a mere police report cannot substitute the statutory requirement of a written complaint by the concerned public servant, making the trial for disobedience of official orders legally unsustainable.

In a case involving an incident from the COVID-19 pandemic, a single-judge bench of Justice Sunitha Gandham adjudicated upon the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court examined whether a motorcycle rider’s refusal to show documents and his subsequent fleeing could constitute criminal force under the Indian Penal Code.

Evaluation of Criminal Force and Assault

The court scrutinised the allegations where the petitioner was accused of throwing a Head Constable aside at a junction in Srikakulam. The bench noted that to attract Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove the use of force as defined under Section 349 and criminal force under Section 350 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Mere use of the expression ‘threw him’, without material particulars showing the manner in which force was intentionally used and the circumstances constituting criminal force, cannot, by itself, establish the necessary ingredients of Section 353 of the I.P.C."

Procedural Bar under Section 195 CrPC

Regarding the charge of violating public orders during the pandemic, the Court highlighted a fatal procedural lapse. It observed that the proceedings were initiated on a police charge sheet rather than a written complaint from the public servant as mandated by Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court has the following directions:

"In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.446 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srikakulam, for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 188 of the I.P.C, are hereby quashed."

Background

The petitioner was booked in May 2020 after he allegedly refused to produce vehicle documents at Ramalaxmana Theatre Junction and fled on his motorcycle after pushing a police officer. The prosecution argued that there was prima facie material to proceed. However, the petitioner contended that he was a permanent resident of Undavalli and the case was filed merely for statistical purposes during the lockdown. The High Court relied on the principles established in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others to determine if the allegations, even if accepted, constituted an offence. Finding the allegations inherently improbable and procedurally flawed, the Court allowed the petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION No. 728 OF 2021
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:42690
Case Title: ARIKATLA RAJESH REDDY @ RAJESH v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Maria Rani representing Sri L J VEERA REDDY
For the Respondent(s): Smt. K. Priyanka Lakshmi (Assistant Public Prosecutor), Sri Naidana Vijaya Kumar

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 17812