Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Kakani Govardhan Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 April, 2025
1
APHC010155332025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3292/2025
Between:
Kakani Govardhan Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. O M R LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following ORDER:
1. This Interlocutory Application is filed by the petitioner / A.4 seeking to
stay all further proceedings, including the arrest of the petitioner in Cr.No.24 of
2025 of Podalakur Police Station [for the offences under sections 120 (b), 447,
427, 379, 290, 506,
06, 109 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
for short, ”IPC‘),
Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (for short,
‘PDPP Act‘), Sections 21(1) and 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act (for short, ‘MMDR Act‘), section 3 and 5 of
Explosive Substances Act and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(
3(2)(va)) and 3(2)(iii) of SC/ST
2(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, ‘SC/ST Act’)], pending disposal of the
petition in Crl.P.No.3292 of 2025.
2. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that:
(i) The 2nd respondent submitted a report to the police (Letter
No.1872/M/2015, dated 14.02.2025), detailing that Somireddy
Chandra Mohan Reddy, an Ex-Minister, staged a dharna at the
subject quarry from 16.12.2023 to 19.12.2023, protesting alleged
illegal quarrying. Upon evacuation on 19.12.2023, an inspection
revealed no quarrying had occurred since 15.12.2023. The DVS team
and technical staff continued monitoring the area. However, allegedly
supported by ruling party members, local individuals began illegal
quarrying operations. After consulting VROs and locals, the
respondent’s team identified individuals (Vakati Siva Reddy and
Vakati Srinivasulu Reddy) conducting illegal quarrying for Quartz and
Feldspar minerals, exporting them to China via Chennai port. Notices
were issued to the culprits under the A.P.M.M.C., Rules, 1966. On
07.12.2023, the 2nd respondent requested filing criminal cases
against the offenders. Despite this, the Podalakur Police Station had
not responded. In response to the 2 nd respondent’s letter
(14.02.2025), a case was registered on 16.02.2025 (Cr.No.24/2025)
under sections 447, 427, 379 r/w 34 IPC, 3 PDPP Act, and 21(1),
21(4) of MMDR Act, against the three accused individuals (A1 to A3).
(ii) On 28.02.2025, the respondent police filed an Alteration
Memo in Cr.No.24/2025, updating the investigation’s progress. They
examined 11 witnesses, visited the crime scene, conducted an
inspection, drafted a Mahazar (attested by mediators), took
photographs and videos, and drew a rough sketch of the area.
Additionally, offences under sections 120(b), 109, 290, and 506 of the
IPC and sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act were
added. The list of accused was expanded to include A4 to A10.
3
3. I have heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner/A.4 and Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General
appearing for the Respondent-State. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner
filed written submissions on behalf of the petitioner/A.4.
4. The record reveals that the police initially registered a case under
Cr.No.24 of 2025, dated 16.02.2025, at the Podalakur Police Station, under
sections 447, 427, 379 r/w 34 of the IPC, section 3 of the PDPP Act, and
sections 21(1) and 21(4) of the MMDR Act, against three individuals, shown
as A.1 to A.3. Additionally, it is evident that on 28.02.2025, the police filed an
alteration memo in Cr.No.24 of 2025, informing that they had examined a total
of 11 witnesses, visited the scene of the offence, and prepared the mahazar,
which was duly attested by the mediators. Photographs and video footage
were taken, and a rough sketch was also drawn. Based on the investigation
and after recording the statement of witnesses, the Investigating Officer
included Sections 120(b), 109, 290, and 506 of the IPC, along with Sections 3
and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, and added A.4 to A.10 to the list of
accused. The police subsequently filed another alteration memo, including
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), and 3(2)(iii) of the SC/ST Act, based on the alleged
statements of LWs 13 to 15.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that A1 filed a quash
petition (Crl.P.No.1950/2025), which led to this Hon’ble Court directing the
respondents to comply with Sec.35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), akin to Sec.41-A of Cr.P.C., and prohibiting coercive
action against A1. Subsequently, the police added new sections and also
implicated A4 to A10. A6 and A8 were remanded to judicial custody on
27.03.2025, with A6 allegedly confessing that he, A7, and A8 worked for
political figures and were involved in illegal mining activities. Based on A6’s
confession, the petitioner was falsely implicated with the addition of new
sections (120B, 109, 290, 506 of IPC, and Sec.3 & 5 of Explosive Substances
Act and 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va)
4
and 3(2)(iii) of SC/ST Act) in the F.I.R. No other material connects the
petitioner to the crime. Despite no show-cause notice being issued to the
petitioner for illegal quarrying, the alteration memo filed on 28.02.2025
appears politically motivated. There are no direct allegations linking the
petitioner to the crime; the only evidence is a vague confession from a co-
accused. The petitioner contends he is innocent and falsely implicated, and
the criminal proceedings lack legal merit.
6. The petitioner’s counsel argues that the show-cause notice issued by
the District Mines and Geology Officer on 12.08.2024 indicates that two
individuals were involved in the illegal quarrying of quartz and feldspar,
exporting the material to China via Chennai. However, the joint inspection
report dated 06.08.2024, submitted by various officials, does not implicate the
petitioner in the illegal activity. Additionally, a letter from the District Mines and
Geology Officer dated 14.02.2025 requests action against Vakati Siva Reddy
and Vakati Srinivasula Reddy, who were involved in the illegal quarrying.
Furthermore, the letter dated 12.02.2025 alleges illegal quarrying by Pernati
Syam Prasad Reddy, Vakati Siva Reddy, and Vakati Srinivasula Reddy and
mentions that notices were issued to these three individuals under Rule 26 (1)
and (ii) of APMMC Rules, 1966.
7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner argues that, apart from the
alleged confession statement of A.6, there is no other material to implicate the
petitioner in the commission of the offence. It is further contended that LW.11,
Sri Somireddy Chandra Mohan Reddy, made the allegations against the
petitioner with a political motive, as the petitioner defeated him in the 2019
general elections in the Sarvepali constituency. It is also contended that,
following the filing of the anticipatory bail application, the prosecution
submitted an alteration memo on 31.03.2025, adding Sections 3(1)(r),
3(2)(va), and 3(2)(iii) of the SC/ST Act.
5
8. The Learned Advocate General relied on the statement of LW.25,
recorded by the police on 28.03.2025, to demonstrate the petitioner’s
involvement in the commission of the offence. The statement of Y. Vidya Kiran
reveals that he was engaged in the mining extraction of mineral quartz, mica,
and feldspar over an area of approximately 32.7 acres of government land,
having obtained the necessary permission from the Mines and Geology
Department for the period from 11.04.1996 to 10.04.2016. They applied to the
Government of Andhra Pradesh to extend the lease, and the matter is
currently being processed. On 25.11.2023, he received a telephone call from
the watchman, who informed him that unknown individuals had forcibly
brought an excavator into the mining area. Additionally, Vidya Kiran alleged
receiving a WhatsApp conference call from the petitioner and Sri Pernati
Syam Prasad Reddy, during which they virtually threatened him. On another
occasion, while observing ongoing illegal mining activities, Sri Vardayapalem
Venkateswara Reddy approached him and handed over his mobile phone,
stating that A.4 was online. He was made to speak with A.4, who threatened
him over the phone, instructing him not to enter the mining area.
9. The Learned Advocate General relied on the statement of P. Krishna
(LW.20), asserting that the offences under the Explosive Substances Act are
applicable to the facts of the case. He further contended that LW.20’s
statement, recorded on 14.03.2025, prima facie establishes the petitioner’s
involvement in the commission of the offence. Additionally, he referred to the
statement of LW.13, Indla Padma, which confirms an explosion in the area
and prima facie attracts the ingredients of the offences under the SC/ST Act.
The Advocate General also submitted that the material evidence on record
suggests the storage of gelatin sticks.
10. The Learned Advocate General placed the copy of letter
No.1872/M/2015, dated 02.01.2024, from A. Sreenivas Kumar, District Mines
and Geology Officer, SPSR Nellore, to the Director of Mines and Geology,
Government of Andhra Pradesh. The letter highlights significant challenges
6
both regular and vigilance authorities’ face in controlling illegal quartz
quarrying in the district, allegedly backed by individuals associated with the
ruling party. It also notes the lack of cooperation from the police in addressing
the issue. Furthermore, the letter mentions that LW.11, a former minister,
began a dharna at the quarry on 16.12.2023 to protest the illegal activities.
The letter claims that local individuals, allegedly supported by ruling party
members, have taken over the quarry by forcibly removing Y. Vidya Kiran of
Mrs. Rusthum Mica Company. The letter was sent during the previous state
government’s tenure, implicating the people belonging to the former ruling
party. The material on record prima facie suggests that illegal quarrying took
place at the site, as stated by Y. Vidya Kiran’s statement in his statement.
11. Thus, at this stage, based on the material, it cannot be prima facie said
that a criminal case is manifestly attended with a mala fide and/or the
proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and it is also difficult to observe that the F.I.R., and
other materials do not disclose cognizable offence.
12. In Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri V. State of A.P.1, the Hon’ble
Apex Court held that:
31. A careful reading of the above-noted judgments makes it clear that the
High Court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the
investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and should not stall the
investigation and/or prosecution except when it is convinced beyond any
manner of doubt that F.I.R. does not disclose commission of any offence or
that the allegations contained in F.I.R. do not constitute any cognizable
offence or that the prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is convinced
that it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the court. In
dealing with such cases, the High Court has to bear in mind that judicial
intervention at the threshold of the legal process initiated against a person
accused of committing the offence is highly detrimental to the larger public
and societal interest. The people and the society have a legitimate
expectation that those committing offences either against an individual or the
society are expeditiously brought to trial and, if found guilty, adequately
punished. Therefore, while deciding a petition filed for quashing F.I.R. or
complaint or restraining the competent authority from investigating the1
(2007) 13 SCC 165
7allegations contained in F.I.R. or complaint or for stalling the trial of the case,
the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect. If the allegations
contained in F.I.R. or the complaint disclose the commission of some crime,
the High Court must keep its hands off, allow the investigating agency to
complete the investigation without any fetter, and refrain from passing orders
that may impede the trial. The High Court should not go into the merits and
demerits of the allegations simply because the petitioner alleges malus
animus against the author of F.I.R. or the complainant. The High Court must
also refrain from making imaginary journeys in the realm of possible
harassment which may be caused to the petitioner on account of the
investigation of F.I.R. or complaint. Such a course will result in a miscarriage
of justice and would encourage those accused of committing crimes to repeat
the same. However, suppose the High Court is satisfied that the complaint
does not disclose the commission of any offence or prosecution is barred by
limitation or that the proceedings of a criminal case would result in failure of
justice. In that case, it may exercise inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.
13. At this stage, the court is not supposed to assess the recorded
statements. It is only required to evaluate the material documents on record to
determine, prima facie, whether there are sufficient grounds for initiating an
investigation against the accused. However, if, based on the admitted facts
and the documents presented by the prosecution, without evaluating or sifting
through the evidence, a case is not established, appropriate orders can be
passed to meet the ends of justice. This court should not adopt a strict or
hyper-technical approach in scrutinizing the prosecution’s case at this stage,
testing the ingredients of the offence with excessive precision. Such an
approach may be appropriate during the trial but not at the initial stage.
14. Though under section 482 of Cr.P.C., (section 528 of BNSS), the High
Court is armed with vide powers to pass such orders as may be necessary to
give effect to any order under this code or prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice, however, powers are not
unbridled, unlimited and without limitations or restrictions. The inherent power
of the High Court is not resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thus, the inherent powers cannot be exercised
when a special provision explicitly covers the matter. This court also views
8
that the inherent powers are not to be used when there is an express bar to
exercise that power.
15. As already stated, the case is still under investigation and investigation
officer has been in the process of collecting the evidence. The legal position is
absolutely clear and during the course of investigation, the Court would not
interfere with the investigation.
16. The petitioner herein has also filed a petition in Crl.P.No.3344 of 2025
seeking anticipatory bail under section 483 of BNSS, which is pending
consideration.
17. Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General appearing for the
Respondent-State, has placed reliance on the orders passed by this Court in
Chalivendra Ramakrishna and others V. State of A.P.2, Deepak Kumar
Tala V. State of A.P.3, and Bandi Raghava Reddy V. State of A.P.4 This
court held that as per sub-section (2) of section 14A of SC and ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the concurrent jurisdiction for consideration of
anticipatory bail provided in section 438 of Cr.P.C stood excluded. At any rate,
what is before this court is not an appeal against an order passed by the
Special Court with reference to bails. On the same subject matter, the High
Court could not be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction as well as
appellate jurisdiction.
18. Both parties have advanced their respective contentions regarding the
maintainability of the anticipatory application under section 483 of BNSS on
the ground that it has been filed directly before this court without approaching
the Special Court.
19. The learned Advocate General also argues for the Respondent / State
that since the court is not supposed to grant anticipatory bail without the
2
2025 SCC OnLine A.P. 22
3
2024 SCC OnLine AP 5790
4
2025SCC OnLine A.P. 31
9
petitioner first approaching the Special Court, the relief sought in this petition
cannot be given at this stage. This court views that, as of today, the judgment
passed by this court remains in effect. Since anticipatory bail applications
cannot be entertained directly before this court, it must be considered whether
this court is supposed to pass orders in this proceeding, to stay the arrest of
the petitioner. Such a request contradicts the well-established principle that
what cannot be done directly should not be done indirectly.
20. Along with the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner (A.4),
several other applications pertaining to various accused individuals
concerning various offences, including the offences registered under the
SC/ST Act, are currently pending before this court. In all these batch petitions,
a request has been made to refer the matter to a Division Bench. The basis
for this request is that the orders previously referred to appear to contradict
the spirit of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by holding
that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applies only to cases where a prima facie
case exists, indicating the commission of an offence under the SC/ST Act. If
the necessary ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act, are
not disclosed upon a prima facie reading of the allegations made in the
complaint or F.I.R., then the bar imposed by Section 18 of the SC/ST Act,
cannot be invoked.
21. All the contentions raised by the petitioner in this application, seeking
stay of arrest of the petitioner, will be considered at the time of the disposal of
the anticipatory bail application; however, they are subject to the
maintainability of the anticipatory bail application before this court.
22. This court passes its orders on the anticipatory bail application filed by
the petitioner and the batch petitions after concluding arguments. At this
juncture, the court refrains from expressing any opinion on the contentions
raised concerning the maintainability of the anticipatory bail application directly
before this court without approaching the Special Court.
10
23. At this stage, it is necessary to examine whether the issuance of
directions to refrain from taking any coercive action is permissible in light of
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra and Others5, as well as in the case of the
State of Telangana V. Habib Abdullah Jeelani 6 , as the petitioner has
already invoked the statutory provision by applying for the grant of anticipatory
bail under Section 483 of BNSS.
24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Neeharika (supra), reads as
under:
“24. This court in the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra), as such,
deprecated such practice/orders passed by the High Courts, directing police
not to arrest, even while declining to interfere with the quashing petition in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid case before
this court, the High Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. However, while dismissing the quashing
petition, the High Court directed the police not to arrest the petitioners during
the pendency of the investigation. While setting aside such an order, it is
observed by this court that such direction amounts to an order under Section
438 Cr.P.C. albeit without satisfaction of the conditions of the said provision,
and the same is legally unacceptable. In the aforesaid decision, it is
specifically observed and held by this court that “it is absolutely inconceivable
and unthinkable to pass an order directing the police not to arrest till the
investigation is completed while declining to interfere or expressing an opinion
that it is not appropriate to stay the investigation.” It is further observed that
this kind of order is really inappropriate and unseemly and it has no sanction
in law. It is further observed that the courts should oust and obstruct
unscrupulous litigants from invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the court at the
drop of a hat to file an application for quashing or launching an F.I.R. or
investigation and then seek relief by an interim order. It is further observed
that it is the obligation of the court to keep such unprincipled and unethical
litigants at bay.
25. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“25. Having reminded the same, presently we can only say that
the types of orders like the present one, are totally unsustainable,
for it is contrary to the aforesaid settled principles and judicial
precedents. It is intellectual truancy to avoid the precedents and
issue directions which are not in consonance with law. It is the duty
of a Judge to sustain the judicial balance and not to think of an
5
2021 SCC Online SC 315
6
(2017) 2 SCC 779
11
order which can cause trauma to the process of adjudication. It
should be borne in mind that the culture of adjudication is stabilised
when intellectual discipline is maintained and further when such
discipline constantly keeps guard on the mind.”
27. In the recent decision of this court in the case of Ravuri Krishna Murthy
(supra), this bench set aside the similar order passed by the Andhra Pradesh
High Court granting a blanket order of protection from arrest, even after
coming to the conclusion that no case for quashing was established. The High
Court, while disposing of the quashing petition and while refusing to quash the
criminal proceedings in the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
directed to complete the investigation into the crime without arresting the
second petitioner – A2 and file a final report if any, in accordance with the law.
The High Court also further passed an order that the second petitioner – A2,
appear before the investigating agency as and when required and cooperate
with the investigating agency. After considering the decision of this court in
the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra), this court set aside the order
passed by the High Court restraining the investigating officer from arresting
the second accused.
25. The mere fact that the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application is
pending does not justify issuing directions to the police to refrain from taking
coercive action. Since the investigation is ongoing, the facts are unclear, and
the complete material is not yet before the High Court, it is not appropriate to
pass interim orders preventing arrest or prohibiting coercive measures.
26. Upon reviewing the contents of the F.I.R., and the other materials, this
court deems it necessary for the authorities to conduct a thorough
investigation. As the police have a statutory right and duty under the relevant
provisions of the BNSS to investigate a cognisable offence, the Courts would
not thwart any investigation into the cognisable offence, and the criminal
proceedings are not to be scuttled at the stage of the investigation.
27. Looking at the materials, this Court views that a prima facie case is
made out against the petitioner which requires a detailed investigation to be
carried out by the authorities. This court is of the view that passing a blanket
interim order not to arrest affects the powers of the investigating agency to
investigate the cognizable offences, which otherwise is a statutory right/duty of
12
the police under the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner’s request
for interim relief to prevent arrest cannot be granted in this context.
28. In light of the observations made, this court is not inclined to stay further
proceedings including the arrest of the petitioner pending disposal of the
quash petition.
29. Needless to say that the observations made herein above, shall not be
construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and the same are
for the sole purpose of deciding the present case.
30. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application is dismissed.
_______________________
T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J
Date: 09.04.2025
SAK
13
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
I.A.No.2 of 2025
in
Crl.P.No.3292 of 2025
Date: 09.04.2025
SAK