Dismissed

Parvathareddy Srija, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Aug 2021CRLP/3125/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single bench Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge sheet is dismissed. The Court held that a plea of alibi requires trial evidence and cannot be decided at the interlocutory stage, and prima facie a case exists for Section 506 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.3125 of 2021 dismissed.

Parvathareddy Srija, Vs The State of Andhra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3125 OF 2021

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”), is filed seeking quash of charge sheet in C.C.No.2092 of 2020 on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1^st respondent/State.

¶5

On a report lodged by the 2^nd respondent, who is the de facto complainant, alleging that the petitioner herein along with other accused have outraged her modesty and threatened her with dire consequences, initially a case in Crime No.17 of 2020 was registered by Vedayapalem Police, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 290, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”). The said case was investigated and eventually the Investigation Officer after finding prima facie evidence in proof of complicity of petitioner herein along with other accused in committing the above offences, has filed charge sheet before the trial Court against the accused. The petitioner herein is A-3 in the said charge sheet. The said case is now pending trial before the trial Court.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a reading of the charge sheet discloses that at best the allegation against the petitioner, who is A-3 is only that she has threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences stating “Champestanu” and as such, only offence punishable

¶7

¶8

under Section 506 of I.P.C. is attracted and no offences under Sections 354 and 290 of I.P.C. are made out against her. He would further submit that the petitioner is not at all at the scene of offence at the time of commission of the said offence, as alleged by the prosecution and she has been falsely implicated in the above crime. Therefore, on the aforesaid two grounds, he would pray for quash of the charge sheet filed against her.

¶9

As can be seen from the material on record including charge sheet, a clear allegation is made against the petitioner herein that she has threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences stating “Champestanu”. Prima facie , it would attract the offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C. Therefore, it cannot be said that no case is made out against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C. for the purpose of quashing the charge sheet that was filed against her.

¶10

As regards the contention that the petitioner was not at the scene of offence at the time of commission of the alleged offence is concerned, it is clear that the petitioner has taken a plea of alibi . It is well settled law that the burden is on the petitioner/accused to establish the plea of alibi . She has to adduce evidence before the trial Court to prove that she was elsewhere and was not at the scene of offence at the time of commission of the alleged offence. Therefore, after adducing the said evidence, it is for the trial Court to take a call on the said plea of the petitioner and by appreciating the evidence on record that was adduced before the trial Court in the final adjudication

¶11

¶12

of the said case, the trial Court has to record a finding to that effect.

¶13

The said disputed question of fact cannot be decided by this Court in a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It requires trial and evidence and appreciation of evidence and a finding on it. Therefore, the charge sheet cannot be quashed on the plea of alibi that is now taken by the petitioner, which is yet to be established before the trial Court. Therefore, this Court does not find any valid legal ground warranting its interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet.

¶14

Therefore, the Criminal Petition lacks merit and it is dismissed.

¶15

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶16

_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶17

Date : 09-08-2021

¶18

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3125 OF 2021

¶21

Date : 09-08-2021

¶22

ARR

Parvathareddy Srija, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvathareddy Srija, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K R Kumar Reddy Vs State of Ap

Mood Naga Naik Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr. Pothula Ravideep Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Karupa Rama Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kunchapu Harikrishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D Lakshmi Vs State through Represented