Allowed

Brosi Reddy v. Stte of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC28 Feb 2020CRLP/3589/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings against the petitioner, an accused not present at the alleged incident and not tarnished by eyewitness testimony. The court quashed the criminal case against him citing abuse of process after the main accused had already been acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.166 of 2018 registered for offences under Sections 341, 323 and 290 r/w.34 IPC are quashed.

Brosi Reddy Vs Stte of Andhra Pradesh — Cheating and Forgery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.3589 of 2019

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.166 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, the present criminal petition is filed by the petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.3 in the charge sheet, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 290 r/w.34 IPC.

¶4

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner/A3 is initially deleted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kavali II Town Police Station as his involvement in the commission of offence has not been stated by the eyewitnesses. He further submits that though name of the petitioner is deleted from the charge sheet, cognizance is taken against him also by the learned Magistrate along with A1 and A2. He further submits that the proceedings against A1 & A2 are quashed by order dated19.12.2018 in Crl.P.No.9886 of 2018 by the erstwhile High Court of AP, and the copy of the said order is placed on record.

¶5

The learned counsel for the petitioner/A3 contends that the alleged eyewitnesses viz.,Pallapu Leela and Kaliki Vajramma have not stated anything against the petitioner/A3, on the other hand stated in clear terms that the petitioner was not at all present at the relevant point of time and is nothing to do with the alleged galata..

¶6

This court has perused the statements of the eyewitnesses viz.,Pallapu Leela and Kaliki Vajramma. Pallapu Leela, one of the eyewitnesses, has made a statement before the police that the petitionerRosi Reddy was not present at the spot when the galata took place. Kaliki

¶7

¶8

JUD,J

¶9

Vajramma, another eyewitness to the incident stated that when the alleged incident took place, the petitioner-Rosi Reddy was not at all present at the place where the incident took place and he is no way connected to the alleged incident.

¶10

The erstwhile High Court of AP has considered the petition filed by A1 & A2 in Crl.P.No.9886 of 2018 and quashed the proceedings against them, vide orders dated 19.12.2018, while observing that the dispute is predominantly civil in nature, adding of criminal flavor to such dispute, is nothing but abuse of process of law.

¶11

As the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident viz.,Pallapu Leela and Kaliki Vajramma themselves have stated that the petitioner/A3 is no way concerned with the alleged incident and that he was not at all present at the time when the galata took place, that too when the proceedings against the main Accused Nos.1 & 2 are already quashed already, continuing the proceedings against the petitioner/A3, is nothing but abuse of process.

¶12

In view of the afore held discussion, the criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/A3 in C.C.No.166 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 290 r/w.34 IPC.

¶13

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.

¶14

________________ J. UMA DEVI, J

¶15

Date: 28.02.2020 Dsr

Brosi Reddy v. Stte of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brosi Reddy v. Stte of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.Nazeer Basha Vs S F Banu

Mrs.Lakshmi Vs Vitta Kristappa

Lakshmi Vs Vitta Kristappa

Korada Tarakesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.Nagabhushanam Vs State of Ap

Kamma Konanki Maruthi Prasad Naidu. Vs The State Sub-Inspector