Allowed

Dr. Reddi Shyamala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Nov 2022CRLP/588/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner, Accused No.80, in a fraud and criminal conspiracy case. The Court held that since the alleged acts pertained to the discharge of official duties, sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was requisite for cognizance; its absence mandated quashing.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.80 in C.C.No.14 of 2019.

Dr. Reddi Shyamala Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition No.588 OF 2020

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner /Accused No.80 in C.C.No.14 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chinthapalli. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 409, 120B read with 34 IPC.

¶5

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

¶6

Smt. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is no way connected to this case. There is no nexus between the acts of the petitioner and the offences alleged. Based on the report of the Assistnant Treasury Officer (A.T.O), District Treasury Office, Visakhapatnam, the present case is registered. The only allegation against the petitioner is that she fraudulently and dishonestly released the excess budget to the office of A22 violating the Rules and procedure laid down by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The contention

¶7

¶8

of the petitioner’s counsel is that in order, for the Court, to take cognizance against the petitioner, sanction of the Government has to be obtained under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

¶9

The allegations, as can be seen from the charge sheet, are that the petitioner released the excess budget to the office of A22 violating the Rules and procedure laid down by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and was negligent in discharging her official duties. Hence, it is obvious that the allegations pertaining to the acts of the petitioner are in discharge of her official duties. In respect of A.81, this Court quashed the proceedings vide its order dated 20.01.2020 in Criminal Petition No.6166 of 2019. The petitioner too stands on the same footing with that of A.81. Therefore, this Court opines that without there being any sanction as contained under Section 197 Cr.P.C., no cognizance can be taken against the petitioner.

¶10

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner, who is Accused No.80, in C.C.No.14 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintapalli, Visakhapatnam.

¶11

¶12

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any,

¶13

in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶14

___________________________ K.SREENIVASA REDDY, J

¶15

Date:15.11.2022 Mnr

¶16

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶18

Criminal Petition No.588 OF 2020

¶19

Date: 15.11.2022

¶20

Mnr.

Dr. Reddi Shyamala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Reddi Shyamala 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

Pentapati Balaji Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Dilip Kumar Jain Vs State of Ap.

Parvathaneni Raghu Prasad Vs J. Bhaskara Rao

A. Puneetha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Vasavi Pharam Market Complex Welfare Society, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chinka Ashok Kumar at Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs Chinka Dhana Lakshmi