Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash Case Against Former Andhra Pradesh CM Chandrababu Naidu For Allegedly Assaulting Prison Personnel

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently declined to quash a criminal case against former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu and Telugu Desam Party (TDP) leader Nakka Ananda Babu. The case dates back to 2010 when the two were accused of assaulting prison personnel during their transfer to the Aurangabad Central Jail following their arrest in another case. A division bench of Justice Mangesh Patil and Justice Shailesh P Brahme observed that there is sufficient evidence indicating the complicity of both Naidu and Babu in the alleged crime. “we have no manner of doubt that there is enough material to reveal complicity of both the applicants in commission of the crime. The F.I.R. expressly alleges about the applicant-accused no. 1 having instigated the fellow prisoners and even threatened of there being war between the two states and the incident having taken place in the manner which has been alleged. There are statements of the witnesses also expressly attributing role to these applicants. There are injury certificates of 12 police personnel”, the court observed. The court rejected the applications filed by them seeking the quashing of the FIR lodged against them with the Dharmabad police in Maharashtra's Nanded district. Naidu and Babu are booked under Sections 353, 324, 332, 336, 337, 504, 506 read with Section 109 and Section 34 of the IPC for assaulting or using criminal force against a public servant, causing harm with dangerous weapons, rash acts endangering lives of others, intentional insult with an intent to provoke breach of peace, and criminal intimidation. The alleged incident occurred in July 2010 when Naidu, Babu, and 66 associates were arrested by the Dharmabad police in connection with protests and agitation. They were initially held in judicial custody at a temporary prison in Dharmabad. However, when the Maharashtra Prisons' DIG ordered their transfer to the Aurangabad Central Prison, Naidu and Babu allegedly refused to comply. They allegedly hurled abuses at jail authorities and threatened inter-state conflict if forced to board the transport arranged for them. The accusations against them also include instigating other accused persons and assaulting police officials, which necessitated the intervention of additional forces for their transfer to the Aurangabad central prison. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra for Naidu and Babu contended that since certain acts of the accused constituted both prison offenses under Prisons Act, 1894, specifically Chapter X and XI, and offenses under the IPC, the jurisdiction to prosecute lay solely with the Superintendent of the Prison, as per Section 48 of the Act. The court emphasized that the charges brought against the accused pertained solely to offenses under the IPC, with no mention of prison offenses in the FIR or charge-sheet. The court reasoned that the absence of specific mention of prison offenses indicated that the case fell under the purview of the IPC rather than the Prisons Act. Therefore, the mechanism for lodging FIRs under the Prisons Act did not apply in this context, the court said. The court noted that the FIR was promptly filed following the incident and the medical examination of injured police personnel provided substantial evidence implicating the applicants. Witness statements and injury certificates of 12 police personnel further supported the allegations, the court noted. The court clarified that Section 52 of the Act, which deals with the procedure for heinous offenses committed by prisoners does not prevent the police from registering a cognizable crime under Section 154 of the CrPC or a Magistrate from taking cognizance of non-prison offenses committed within the prison. Rule 25 of the Punishments Rules framed under Clause 4 of Section 59 of the Prisons Act, outlines the procedure for dealing with acts constituting both prison offenses and offenses under the IPC. The court clarified that while the Superintendent may choose to inflict punishment under Section 46 of the Act or forward the prisoner to a Judicial Magistrate First Class for trial, such discretion did not apply to offenses exclusively falling under the IPC. Thus, the court rejected the applications seeking to quash the criminal case against the accused individuals. However, the court extended interim relief to the applicants until July 8, 2024. Case no. – Criminal Application No. 3428 Of 2023 Case Title – Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of MaharashtraClick Here To Read / Download Order

Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash Case Against Former Andhra Pradesh CM Chandrababu Naidu For Allegedly Assaulting Prison Personnel

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags