Won't seek withdrawal of criminal cases against TD leaders: AP govt to HC

Hyderabad: The Andhra Pradesh government on Tuesday assured the High Court that the process of withdrawing criminal cases against TD leaders would not be taken forward in the lower courts.

AP Advocate-General Dammalapati Srinivas gave this assurance to a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice J Uma Devi.

It was hearing a public interest petition filed by Mangalagiri YSRC legislator A Ramakrishna Reddy challenging the government orders issued to withdraw the cases.

The petitioner told the court that GOs had been issued to withdraw cases against 273 people including Deputy Chief Ministers K E Krishnamurthy and N Chinarajappa, Speaker Kodela Siva Prasada Rao, ministers Devineni Uma Maheswara Rao, Kollu Ravindra, Nakka Anand Babu, K Atchennaidu and Ganta Srinivasa Rao.

During the last hearing, the bench had asked Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy to file the details of cases in tabular form segregating the cases of murder, rape and arson.

While submitting the details on Tuesday, counsel said that the government did not have the power to order the public prosecutors to seek closure of criminal cases.

They have to act on their own in accordance with the law.

He told the court that one MLA was facing serious charges of rape and murder.

Srinivas submitted that the GOs were issued over the past three years and the petitioner, due to political rivalry, had clubbed them and moved the PIL before the court which was not permissible in law.

He said that the Supreme Court had ruled that the state government had the power to withdraw the cases.

The bench said, “Leave political rivalry of the petitioner. We can also take this matter suo motu in view of the seriousness of the matter.”

The AG then sought time to file the counter affidavit. Agreeing to the request, the bench said: “In the meantime if trial courts close the cases based on application filed by the prosecutors for withdrawal of cases, what would be fate of this PIL?”

The AG replied that the prosecutors would be asked to seek adjournment on the petitions. The court recorded his statement statement and granted three weeks for the AG to file the counter affidavit.