Bombay HC refuses to quash FIR against former Andhra Pradesh CM Chandrababu Naidu

The FIR was registered on July 20, 2010 with Dharmabad police station in Nanded district for offences including assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means, act endangering life or personal safety of others, criminal intimidation among others under the Indian Penal Code.

As per the complaint, the TDP leaders crossed over from Telangana to Maharashtra to stage a protest at Babli barrage in Nanded district in July, 2010. The leaders, who were in the opposition in united Andhra at the time, were agitating against the dam across Godavari as the water flow to downstream areas in Telangana would be affected.

Naidu and Babu along with others were arrested for protest and agitation on July 17 that year and were remanded to judicial custody and were kept in a temporary prison at Government Rest House in Dharmabad.

The state Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) had instructed them to be shifted to Aurangabad Central Jail in view of security arrangements. However, Naidu, Babu and others allegedly refused to cooperate and started making arguments and insisted for air conditioned buses to shift them.

Next day, on July 20, when the jailer requested them to board the air-conditioned bus, the applicants refused to do so and allegedly declared that if they were forced to do so, there would be unrest and conflict between the Maharashtra and Telangana states.

They allegedly started hurling abuses in Telugu and English and used criminal force against jail authorities and assaulted some police constables, after which additional forces were called and the accused were ‘somehow’ shifted to Aurangabad jail. Thereafter, the jailer registered the impugned FIR.

Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing Naidu and Babu, claimed that the agitation was withdrawn and the magistrate had immediately discharged the accused, despite which police machinery falsely implicated applicants in the present FIR through ‘concocted’ allegations.

The court, however, held that there was ‘no illegality in registration of the crime against the applicants, its investigation by police and cognisance taken by magistrate’ and rejected the pleas.