The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has quashed criminal proceedings against a Kurnool resident accused in a sand theft case, holding that the police acted beyond their powers while registering and investigating a non-cognizable offence. The ruling came from Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, who found serious procedural lapses and termed the prosecution an abuse of process.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by P. Rashidulla, arrayed as Accused No. 3 in C.C. No. 720 of 2025, pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Special Mobile Court, Kurnool. The police had booked the case for alleged theft of sand under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR Act).
Read also:- Cooling-Off Period Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Revives Mutual Consent Divorce Appeal
According to the prosecution, a tractor-trailer carrying sand was intercepted, while another tractor was found empty. Rashidulla approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita).
Arguments Before the Court
Senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the police had failed to mention the value of the seized sand either in the complaint or the charge sheet. He contended that when the value of stolen property is below ₹5,000, the offence under Section 303(2) of the BNS is non-cognizable and bailable.
It was further submitted that the case against Rashidulla was based solely on the confession of a co-accused, which is only corroborative and not substantive evidence. The defence also pointed out that the petitioner was not the owner of the tractor and that the informant and the investigating officer were the same person.
Read also:- Lalu Prasad Yadav Challenges Framing of Charges in IRCTC Scam Case Before Delhi High Court
On the MMDR Act charge, the petitioner’s counsel stressed that under Section 22 of the Act, only an authorised officer from the Mining Department can file a complaint, and the police have no power to register an FIR on their own.
Court’s Observations
The Court examined Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which replaces the earlier theft provision under the Indian Penal Code. Justice Pratapa noted that while theft under the old IPC regime was entirely cognizable, the new BNS makes a clear distinction based on the value of the stolen property.
“The offence becomes non-cognizable when the value of the stolen property does not exceed ₹5,000 and the punishment prescribed is only community service,” the bench observed.
The Assistant Public Prosecutor conceded that the value of the seized sand, as per the Tahsildar’s report, was only ₹1,500. She also admitted that the police had not obtained any prior permission from the Magistrate to investigate a non-cognizable offence.
On the MMDR Act charge, the Court reiterated that cognizance is barred unless a written complaint is filed by the competent authority notified by the government.
Read also:- Chhattisgarh Excise Scam: High Court Grants Bail to Chaitanya Baghel in ED and ACB Cases
The Decision
Holding that the police had “mechanically registered the FIR” and proceeded with the investigation without following the mandatory procedure, the Court allowed the criminal petition. It quashed all proceedings against Rashidulla in C.C. No. 720 of 2025 for offences under Section 303(2) of the BNS and Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act.
However, the Court clarified that the order would not prevent the competent authority under the MMDR Act from initiating action afresh in accordance with law, if so advised.
Case Title: P. Rashidulla v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 10465 of 2025
Case Type: Criminal Petition (Quash Proceedings)
Decision Date: 05 December 2025
