Dismissed

Sanikommmu Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Aug 2021CRLP/4696/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of a charge sheet and dispensation from accused presence. It held that alibi pleas require evidence and trial adjudication, while dispensation requests must be sought before the trial Court under specific statutory provisions.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; prayer for dispensation with presence of accused rejected.

Sanikommmu Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4696 of 2021

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This Criminal 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.72 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶5

The petitioners are A-1 to A-4 in C.C.No.72 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili. They have been facing prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 506 r/w 34 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶6

On a report lodged by the de facto complainant, who is the 2^nd respondent, stating that the petitioners, who are her husband and his relatives, have subjected her to harassment and cruelty with illegal demand for additional dowry, a case in Crime No.48 of 2021 was initially registered by Konakanamitla police for the aforesaid offences. Eventually, after completion of investigation and having collected evidence in proof of complicity of the petitioners in commission of the aforesaid offences, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners in the trial Court. The said case is now pending trial before the trial Court.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly sought quash of the charge sheet against the petitioners on the ground that A-2

¶8

¶9

and A-4 are not at all present at the time of commission of alleged offences and A-4 is in his office. He would submit that in proof of the same that the extract of attendance register of A-4 is also filed and this shows that entire case is foisted and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the above crime. Therefore, he would pray for quash of the F.I.R.

¶10

In a way, the aforesaid plea taken by the petitioners that A-2 and A-4 are not at the scene of offence shows that they have taken a plea of alibi. It is settled law that the burden is on the accused to prove the said plea of alibi. Therefore, the matter requires evidence to be adduced in the trial Court in proof of the said plea of alibi. The said attendance register has to be produced before the trial Court as a piece of evidence and relevant witness, who is competent to prove the said entries in the register, has to be examined and then the trial Court has to appreciate the said evidence along with the other evidence in the final adjudication of the said case and has to record a finding to that effect. The said plea of alibi cannot be considered in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C and the High Court cannot appreciate the evidence on record in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, all these matters are to be considered by the trial Court in the final adjudication of the same. So, the aforesaid ground on which the petitioner sought quash of the F.I.R is not a valid legal ground warranting interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C at this stage to quash the charge sheet. As already noticed, the matter requires trial and appreciation of evidence that may be

¶11

¶12

adduced during the course of trial in the final adjudication of the case. Therefore, the petition lacks merit.

¶13

In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed to dispense with the presence of the accused in the trial Court. The same also cannot be entertained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There are certain provisions both in the Criminal Rules of Practice and also in Cr.P.C, which are to be invoked by the accused before the trial Court to make a request to dispense with the presence of the accused. So, they have to file a petition before the trial Court under the relevant provision of law and it is for the trial Court to take a decision on it. The said power exercisable by a Magistrate cannot be exercised by the High Court directly in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is also settled law that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked, only when there is no specific provision of law seeking remedy. As there is a specific provision of law in Criminal rules of Practice and also in Cr.P.C to make a request before the trial Court to dispense with the presence of the accused, they have to pursue their remedy in the trial Court itself. Therefore, the said request is also hereby rejected.

¶15

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶16

______________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶17

Date: 23.08.2021 AKN

¶18

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4696 of 2021

¶21

Date: 23-08-2021

¶22

AKN

Sanikommmu Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanikommmu Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy v. 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

Yalamarthi Mahalakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Paladugu Rama Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Merugu Venugopal Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Dacherla Venkata Ramanaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vissamsetti Ramaseshukumari Vs The State of A.P.

Panta Ramachandra Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh