Disposed

Annapureddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Mar 2023CRLP/1384/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dispensed with the personal appearance of petitioners A2 and A3 before the trial Court while granting A1 to represent them. The Criminal Petition sought to quash proceedings under the SCs and STs (PoA) Act and IPC based on allegations of loan default and physical assault.

What did the court decide?

Presence of petitioners A2 and A3 dispensed; A1 to represent them; Criminal Petition disposed.

Annapureddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Caste Atrocities | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1384 of 2023

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed, by the A1 to A3, seeking to quash the proceedings, in S.C. No.74 0f 2022 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the SCs and the STs (PoA) Act-cum-X Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, registered for the offences under Sections 323, 384, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

¶5

The allegations, in brief, in the charge sheet may be stated as follows:

¶6

In the year 2019, the de facto complainant/2^nd respondent, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/ from the accused and executed a promissory note and subsequently he failed to repay the same. On that, the accused beat him indiscriminately, took away his auto, abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. Thereupon, the de facto complainant gave report to police and basing on the report,

¶7

police registered the case in Crime No.116 of 2020 and after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet.

¶8

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that without going into the merits of the case, presence of petitioners 2 and 3/A2 and A3 may be dispensed with and that A1 will represent A2 and A3 before the trial Court.

¶9

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the presence of petitioners 2 and 3/A2 and A3 before the trial Court is dispensed with and A1/the petitioner No.1 has to represent petitioners 2 and 3/A2 and A3. However, the petitioners/A2 and A3 shall appear before the trial Court whenever the learned Sessions Judge specifically directs for their appearance.

¶10

With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶11

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶12

JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY Date: 14.3.2023 Note: Issue C.C. by 17.3.2023 B/o GR

¶13

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

¶15

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1384 of 2023

¶16

Date: 14.3.2023

¶17

Annapureddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annapureddy 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

Vagela Bhaghavan Das Atgangaram Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Bonthula Tarun Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kunjum Kamesh Dora Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Dudekula Mohammad Khasim Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Harivaram Shaik Basha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Darbar Singh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh