No Re-Notification Needed For Vijayawada ACB To Operate As A Police Station After Andhra Pradesh Bifurcation; Supreme Court Restores FIRs Quashed For Lack Of Jurisdiction
Isabella Mariam
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside an Andhra Pradesh High Court decision that had quashed a batch of Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) FIRs for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the High Court adopted a hyper-technical approach that resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice. Allowing the appeals filed by the ACB’s Joint Director (Rayalaseema) and others, the Court restored FIRs alleging corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, arising from the registration of cases by the ACB’s Central Investigation Unit at Vijayawada and challenges to its authority as a police station after State reorganisation. The Bench permitted investigations to continue across Andhra Pradesh, directed filing of final reports within six months, and barred coercive steps while requiring cooperation from the accused.
The appeals arose from a batch of criminal cases in which First Information Reports were registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Central Investigation Unit, Andhra Pradesh, for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIRs were registered between 2016 and 2020 after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh and the formation of the State of Telangana.
The accused persons challenged the FIRs before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, contending that the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Central Investigation Unit at Vijayawada had no jurisdiction to register FIRs as it was not notified as a police station under Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Reliance was placed on the absence of a specific post-bifurcation notification declaring the Vijayawada office as a police station.
The State relied upon Government Orders, notifications, and circulars issued prior to and after bifurcation, including G.O.Ms. No. 268 dated 12.09.2003, provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, and subsequent clarificatory orders, to assert continuity of jurisdiction.
The High Court accepted the accused persons’ contention and quashed the FIRs solely on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Aggrieved, the State and Anti-Corruption Bureau preferred appeals before the Supreme Court.
The Court examined the definition of “police station” under Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and recorded that “a ‘post,’ held by a police officer, can be defined as a police station, and so also a ‘place’.” It further noted that “there need not be a specific place to be declared as a police station, as even a post being held by a police officer would constitute a police station.”
While considering the effect of bifurcation, the Court observed that “there is indeed no requirement for any specific order of adoption, particularly for the State of Andhra Pradesh.” It recorded that “the State of Andhra Pradesh continues to be the same State, as what has been done is, by merely carving out some of its territories, a new State has been created.”
The Court found fault with the High Court’s approach and stated that “the approach of the High Court is nothing but a travesty of justice.” It further observed that “if, on a hyper-technical ground, the FIRs are quashed, the High Court is duty-bound to lay down the law with respect to the jurisdiction that otherwise exists.”
With reference to the clarificatory Government Order of 2022, the Court recorded that “when a Government Order is issued by way of a clarification, there is no question of any retrospective application.” It further stated that “the said Government Order merely quotes the various provisions of the 2014 Act in order to make the position abundantly clear.”
The Court also noted the consequences of the High Court’s decision and observed that “we are dealing with a situation where years have lapsed without further progress on the registered FIRs.” It concluded that “by no stretch of imagination, the impugned judgment can be sustained.”
The Court directed that “the impugned judgment stands set aside and the appeals stand allowed.” It further ordered that “the appellant(s) are at liberty to proceed with the investigation. The final reports are to be filed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” It also directed that “the appellant(s) shall not take any coercive steps by way of arresting the respondents herein.” The Court also directed that “the respondents herein shall co-operate with the expeditious conclusion of the investigation.”
“The High Court shall not entertain any more challenge to the FIRs or the pending investigation. Liberty is granted to the respondents herein to raise all the other issues, other than the one decided by us, only after the conclusion of the investigation. The impleading application, being CRL. M.P. No. 245004 of 2025, is allowed,” and that “pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Karl P Rustomkhan, Adv. Mr. Parv Arora, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mrs. Gouri Karuna Mohanti, Adv. Ms. Anu Gupta, AOR Mr. Veerla Sateesh Kumar, Adv. Dr. Sofia Begum, Sr. Adv. Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Puspa Kishore, Adv. Mr. Sujeet Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Satendra Kumar, Adv. Ms. Mansa Singh, Adv. Ms. Sangeeta Gaur, Adv. Ms. Shubra Shah, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Shah, Adv. Mr. Dharmavath Ravi, Adv. Mr. Anugu Ushi Reddy, Adv. Mr. Sriram P., AOR Mr. S Ragasandesh Adv, Adv. Ms. Anu Gupta, AOR Mr. Sriram Parakkat., AOR Mr. Bhushan Mahendra Oza, AOR Ms. Nidhi Mittal, AOR Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sulakshan Vs, Adv. Mr. Agnish Aditya, Adv. Mr. Vishesh Goel, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Mittal, AOR Mr. Suresh Babu, Adv. Mr. Navin Suresh, Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Dr. Kk Geetha, Adv. Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv. Mr. Suresh Babu, Adv. Mr. Navin Suresh, Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Dr. Kk Geetha, Adv. Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv.
Case Title: The Joint Director (Rayalaseema), Anti-Corruption Bureau, A.P. & Anr. v. Dayam Peda Ranga Rao & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 37
Case Number: Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos. 14321–14333 of 2025
Bench: Justice M. M. Sundresh, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
