Dismissed

Muppalla Balakrishna v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Oct 2022CRLP/2013/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Petition, the Court dismissed the petitioner's attempt to quash a Cognizance Order under Section 307 IPC. The Court held the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had previously challenged the same order in Revision before the Sessions Court, which dismissed the plea. The petitioner failed to challenge the Revision Order and thus cannot now approach this Court to quash t

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition NO.2013 of 2022 dismissed; all pending applications stood closed.

Muppalla Balakrishna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2013 of 2022

¶5

Between:-

¶6

Muppalla Balakrishna …. Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi.

¶9

Thota Mohan Rao

¶10

Thota Mohan Rao …. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.Narra Srinivasa Rao

¶11

Counsel for the Respondents : Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Cognizance Order in C.F.R.No.1022 of 2018 in Cr.No.18 of 2016 on the file of the Rajupalem Police Station, dated 25.07.2019 passed by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, Guntur District.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1^st respondent-State.

¶15

The petitioner herein is the accused in the above referred crime, which is registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The learned counsel while referring to various grounds placed in the Criminal

¶16

¶17

Petition, inter alia submits that the Police registered a case in Cr.No.18 of 2016 against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint of the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant under Section 307 IPC and subsequently after investigation, Section of Law was altered from Section 307 IPC to Section 305 IPC. He further submits that the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant filed a private complaint by way of protest petition before the Learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli and by an order dated 25.07.2019 in C.F.R.No.1022/2018 the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC against the petitioner. The learned counsel tried to impress upon this Court that the said order of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli is illegal and unsustainable, inter alia, contending that no clinching material is available to take prima facie view

¶18

that an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was committed. The learned further submits that mere threatening does not attract the

¶19

ingredients of Section 307 IPC, more particularly, when there is no mens rea. The learned counsel accordingly sought for allowing the Criminal Petition by quashing the impugned order dated 25.07.2019.

¶20

This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record and not inclined to appreciate the contentions advanced. A perusal of the material on record would go to show that against the order in C.F.R.No.1022/2018 in Cr.No.18/2016 dated 25.07.2019 the

¶21

¶22

petitioner/accused preferred a Crl.R.P.No.88 of 2018 before Court of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur and the same was dismissed by an order dated 18.02.2020. The petitioner/accused, if he is aggrieved by the said order, ought to have challenged the same under the relevant provisions of Law. Instead of challenging the said order, the petitioner is seeking to quash the Cognizance Order of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and the present quash petition is therefore not maintainable and liable to be rejected.

¶23

In the grounds, a plea was taken that the order passed in the Revision is not sustainable, however the same is not sufficient to interfere with the same in the absence of any specific prayer in the Criminal Petition.

¶24

For the said reasons, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.

¶25

___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

Date: 13.10.2022

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶30

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2013 of 2022

¶31

Date: 13.10.2022

¶32

Muppalla Balakrishna v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muppalla Balakrishna 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mis. Mullangi Venkata Ratnam, Vs Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (Apiic)

Pinninti Venkata Nagalakshmi Vs Smt.Y. Lakshmi, IAS

Burre Prabhunadh Prasada Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sure Srinivasulu Vs Manga Srinivasulu

Ratchamarri Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri S.Kondala Rao Vs Sri D.Suresh