Bombay High Court refused to quash the FIR against former Andhra Pradesh CM Chandrababu Naidu and TDP leader Nakka Ananda Babu. The case stems from an assault on police personnel in Maharashtra’s Nanded district. The dismissal of their petitions means legal proceedings will continue in the matter. Naidu and Babu are now set to face the charges filed by Dharmabad police.
Mumbai: The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court declined to dismiss a case against former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu and TDP leader Nakka Ananda Babu, who are accused of assaulting police personnel in Maharashtra in 2010.
In its judgment on May 10, a division bench comprising Justices Mangesh Patil and Shailesh Brahme stated,
“There is sufficient evidence to indicate the involvement of both Naidu and Babu in the alleged crime.”
The court dismissed the petitions filed by Naidu, the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) chief, and Babu, seeking to quash the First Information Report (FIR) registered against them at the Dharmabad police station in Maharashtra’s Nanded district. The FIR charged them with offenses such as assaulting or using criminal force against a public servant, causing harm with dangerous weapons, rash acts endangering the lives of others, intentional insult with the intent to provoke a breach of peace, and criminal intimidation.
The bench, in its order, stated,
“There is ample evidence to establish the complicity of both Naidu and Babu in the commission of the crime. It mentioned that the FIR specifically alleges that Naidu instigated fellow prisoners and even threatened the occurrence of a war between the two states.”
The bench also noted that,
“Witnesses’ statements directly implicated Naidu and Babu in the offence, and medical certificates indicated injuries sustained by several police officials.”
The High Court stated that,
“There is sufficient evidence indicating the involvement of the applicants (Naidu and Babu) in the crime they are accused of, and therefore, dismissing the case or the criminal proceedings would not be suitable,”
The bench dismissed both petitions but granted an extension of the interim protection until July 8, as requested by Sidharth Luthra, the counsel for Naidu and Babu. During July 2010, Naidu, Babu, and 66 others arrested by the Dharmabad police in relation to a separate case involving protests and agitation. They remanded to judicial custody and temporarily held at the Government Rest House in Dharmabad.
When their judicial custody prolonged, the Maharashtra Prisons’ DIG ordered their transfer to the Aurangabad central prison. However, Naidu and Babu refused to be relocated and allegedly used abusive language in Telugu and English towards the prison authorities. When the jailer requested them to board an air conditioned bus, Naidu and Babu reportedly threatened a conflict between the two states if they forced to comply.
The allegation against the duo, they incited the other accused individuals and resorted to criminal force, even assaulting some police officials. Additional reinforcements called, and Naidu, Babu, and the remaining accused eventually transferred to the Aurangabad central prison.
Luthra, the senior advocate representing Naidu and Babu, argued that the FIR relating to the agitation had been withdrawn and that the magistrate promptly discharged all the accused in that case. However, the police now implicating the duo in the assault case. Luthra contended that the allegations in this case false and fabricated.
The advocate stated,
“According to the provisions of the Prisons Act, the authority to file FIRs vested solely in the superintendent of prisons.”
In this case, the complaint filed by a senior jailer, who lacked the authority to independently file an FIR, argued the lawyer.
Nevertheless, the court rejected this argument, clarifying that the accused charged under the Indian Penal Code for distinct offenses, which are separate from those covered by the Prisons Act.
The High Court stated,
“The challenged offenses and the chargesheet aim solely to invoke the provisions of the Indian Penal Code,”
The court added,
“Therefore, Luthra’s argument is not legally valid,”
The bench noted,
“The Prisons Act does not establish any method or procedure for filing FIRs under the Indian Penal Code concerning offenses that occur within prison facilities.”
The decision to not quash the FIR highlights the court’s stance on upholding the integrity of legal proceedings, especially in cases involving alleged offenses against law enforcement personnel. It also highlights the broader implications of how legal proceedings handled in cases involving high-ranking officials and the scrutiny such cases undergo in the judicial system.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
