Court Emphasizes Mandatory Written Complaint Requirement Under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Condemns Abuse of Legal Process
In a significant judgment delivered on July 31, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, quashed FIR No. 449 of 2025 registered at Nandigama Police Station, NTR District, against political activists including Devineni Avinash and others. The Court held that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners were legally unsustainable due to non-compliance with statutory prerequisites under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS") and the vague and omnibus nature of the allegations.
The case arose from an FIR alleging that the petitioners, leaders and workers of YSRCP, conducted an unlawful rally and dharna titled "Annadata Poru" without permission, disobeyed police warnings, forcibly pushed police personnel aside, obstructed them in official duties, and manhandled a uniformed complainant, thereby disturbing public peace and order. The prosecution invoked multiple penal provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ("BNS"), including Sections 132, 195(1), 189(3), 223, 285, 292, and 293.
However, the petitioners challenged the FIR, contending that the allegations were vague, general in nature, and failed to attribute specific overt acts to them. The petitioners argued that mere participation in a political rally without precise acts of assault or obstruction could not constitute offences under the cited provisions. Crucially, they pointed out the absence of a written complaint by the concerned public servant or an authorised superior, as mandated under Section 215 of the BNSS for offences like those under Section 223 BNS, which barred cognizance in the absence of such complaint.
The High Court undertook a detailed examination of the statutory framework and relevant Supreme Court precedents, including landmark rulings in C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, Govind Mehta v. State of Bihar, Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh, and Bandekar Bros. (P) Ltd. v. Prasad Vassudev Keni. The Court reiterated that Sections 190 and 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)—corresponding to Sections 215 and 528 of the BNSS—impose a procedural bar on courts taking cognizance of certain offences without a formal written complaint by the public servant concerned. This safeguard prevents frivolous and malicious prosecutions and ensures the sanctity of the judicial process.
The Court found that the FIR did not specify which petitioner committed what act, nor did it disclose the nature of force or obstruction purportedly used. Allegations of continuing the protest despite police warnings were deemed insufficient to constitute criminal force or obstruction warranting prosecution under the relevant BNS provisions. The Court also noted the absence of any complaint from the public or demonstration of actual obstruction to public ways, undermining the applicability of Sections 285, 292, and 293.
On the pivotal question of cognizance under Section 223 BNS, the Court emphasized the mandatory requirement of a written complaint by the public servant or their superior under Section 215 BNSS. The record lacked any such complaint, rendering the prosecution barred and amounting to an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (analogous to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s firm stance against launching criminal proceedings without strict adherence to procedural safeguards and on the basis of vague, generalized allegations. It protects citizens from undue harassment and upholds the principle that criminal law must not be used as a tool for political vendetta or intimidation.
Bottom Line:
Criminal proceedings initiated without compliance with statutory prerequisites under Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lack legal sustainability and amount to abuse of the process of law.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 215, Section 223, Section 528; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 132, 189(3), 195(1), 285, 292, 293; Code of Criminal Procedure Sections 190, 195, 482 (referred for analogy)
Devineni Avinash v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2974191
