Mandatory Complaint Requirement Prevails: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Case for Statutory Bar

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has quashed criminal proceedings against a political leader for staging a peaceful protest, reaffirming that the absence of a formal written complaint by a competent public servant is a fatal statutory defect that invalidates any prosecution for disobeying public orders.

Justice Sunitha Gandham, presiding over the matter, emphasized that criminal machinery cannot be set in motion for minor protests without satisfying the foundational legal requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Judicial Scrutiny of Unlawful Assembly Charges

The Court noted that the prosecution failed to demonstrate the essential ingredients for offenses under Sections 143 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The mere act of conducting a dharna, according to the Court, does not constitute an unlawful assembly unless five or more persons are shown to have a specific common object that falls under the illegal categories defined in Section 141. The Court has following directions:

"The Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.1 in C.C. No.325 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Guntur, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341 and 188 read with Section 34 IPC. As a sequel, all miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed."

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly and with due circumspection. However, where the allegations in the FIR, charge sheet and accompanying material, even if accepted at face value and in their entirety, do not constitute the offences alleged, or where continuation of the proceedings is barred by law, this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice."

Background

The petitioner, Chief Secretary of the National Dalith Bahujan Front, was accused of participating in a dharna at Lodge Centre, Guntur in 2016. The police filed a charge sheet alleging violations of Sections 143, 341, and 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, citing a standing order under Section 30 of the Police Act.

The petitioner argued that the protest was peaceful and that the mandatory procedure under Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was ignored, as the report was lodged by a Head Constable rather than the officer who issued the prohibitory orders. The Court relied on Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab ( "1962 (supp) 2 SCR 812": 1962 CaseBase(SC) 491) and State of U.P. v. Mata Bhikh to underscore the necessity of administrative subordination in such complaints. Furthermore, applying the principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court concluded that the continuation of proceedings where foundational legal requirements are absent would constitute an abuse of process. Consequently, the High Court quashed the proceedings in C.C. No.325 of 2019.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1108 of 2023
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:43129
Case Title: Malam Bhagyarao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Arun Showri G
For the Respondent(s): Public Prosecutor (AP)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 17824