Dismissed

Katikala Venkateswarlu v. State Sub

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Sept 2023CRLP/209/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving offences under IPC and IT Act where the trial court had framed charges and the case was at trial stage, the High Court held it was not a fit case for quashing and dismissed the petition while expediting the trial.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 209 of 2020 is dismissed; the petitioner is directed to ensure the trial court expeditiously disposes of the case within one year.

Katikala Venkateswarlu Vs State Sub — Cheating and Forgery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATJ V.

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER '

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No: 209 OF 2020

¶8

Between:

¶9

Thirupathaiah, aged 61yrs, Retired Employee, R/o Flat No 302, SthLane, Chigurupati Velati Nagar, Guntur, Now at D No 5-98-30/3 4th Lane, Devapuram, Pattibhipuram, Guntur.

¶10

...Petitioner/Accused No.4

¶11

AND

¶12

1. The State, Sub Divisional Police Officer, Tenali, Cr No 85/2016 of Tenali I TOwn Police Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.

¶13

Kesavulugari Surendra Babu, S/o Chinna Subba Rayulu, aged about 55 yrs Deputy Director, District Treasury Office, Guntur, R/o Flat No 402, SV R Nestle 0 Lane, Syamala Nagar, Guntur. ( Defacto-Complainant)

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

Petjtjon under Sectran 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, t:.„ , the High Court may be Pleased to quash the proceedings in CC.No.56/2018 on the file oHhe learned "I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali.

¶16

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2020

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the Fir and Charge sheet in CC.No.56/2018 on the file of the I Additional judicial Magistrate of First Class Tenali.

¶18

i.A. NO: 2 OF 2020

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner ! accused No 4 in CC.No.56 ! 2018 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, Guntur District.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Mekala Rama Murthy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶21

The Court made the following Order:

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.209 of 2020

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard Sri Mojjada Hari Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri Mekala Rama Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor representing for the respondent No. 1/State.

¶25

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, who is the 4th accused in Crime No.85 of 2016 of Tenali I Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 409, 468, 471, 477-A, 420, 421, 201b of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66-C of the Information Technology Act, 2008, to quash the proceedings in Calendar Case No.56 of 2018 pending on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tenali of Guntur District.

¶26

This petition was filed alleging that there is no material against him to proceed with the offences punishable under Section 409, 468, 471, 477-A, 420, 421, 201b of IPC and Section 66-C of the Information Technology Act, 2008.

¶27

BVLNC, J CrLP.No.209 of2020

¶28

4. In the light of above contention, the point that would arise for consideration in this criminal petition is as under:

¶29

“Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.56 of 2018 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tenali of Guntur District be quashed against the petitioner/accused No.4, as prayed for?”

¶30

POINT;-

¶31

It is not a disputed fact that the learned Magistrate, upon hearing both sides under Section 239 and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, came to an opinion that there is material against the accused including the petitioner/accused No.4 herein, to proceed further and accordingly, framed charge for the offences punishable under Section 409, 468, 471, 477-A 420, 421, 201b of IPC and Section 66-C of the Information Technology Act, 2008 on 14.05.2019 and the case is coming for trial for examination of witnesses.

¶32

6. Considering the said facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to quash the case against the petitioner/accused No.4 at this stage.

¶33

7. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Petition iIS Dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case as

¶34

Page 2 of 3

¶35

BVLNC, J CrLP.No.209 of2020

¶36

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of One (01) year from the date, copy of this order is produced before the Trial Court.

¶37

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶38

SD/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 (OUT)

at ■

Three CD Copies GLM vna

Page 3 of 3

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/09/2023

ORDER

CRLP.No.209 of 2020

¶51

DISMISSING THE CRL.P.

¶52

6- GpCes

Katikala Venkateswarlu v. State Sub

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Katikala Venkateswarlu v. State Sub

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

Santosh Kumar Pattnaik, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Sarada Devi Bhonagiri, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kopparapu Chinna Vannur, Vs the State of Ap

Syed Jareena Vs State of Ap

S. Satya Sri Poornima Vs The State ofAndhra Pradesh

P.AnkammaRao, Vs Dr. N.UmaSundari