Dismissed

A Madhsudhana Rao v. Chintala Phanidra Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Nov 2023CRLP/214/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court criminal petition dismissed an application seeking quashing of a criminal case involving an alleged offence under IPC Section 324. The Court held that the facts could not be looked into at this stage, and no fit circumstances existed to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition was dismissed and the proceedings in C.C.No.652/2019 were maintained.

A Madhsudhana Rao Vs Chintala Phanidra Rao — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 214 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Arepalli Madhsudhana Rao, S/o Krishna Murthy, Aged 54 Years, Occ Advocate R/o. J.K. Residency, Near Paripurnaiah School, Repalle, Guntur District.

¶8

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

^ D Venkateswarlu, Aged 53 Years, Occ . Business, K/o. 12 Ward, Repalle Municipality, Repalle, Guntur District. Pradesh, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court^of

¶11

Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS

¶13

f Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court mav be p eased to quash the CC.No. 652/2019 on the file of the Court of the Hon'ble Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, Guntur District, against the Petitioner/Accused and pass

¶14

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2020

¶15

t i ^ 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 f^eased to stay of all further proceedings in CC.^{No.652/2019onthefileof} the Court of the Hon'ble Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, Guntur District.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K RAMA KOTESWARA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2.

¶17

The Court made the following:

¶18

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2l4 of 2020

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

I. This instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973' is filed by the Petitioner/Accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.652/2019 on the file of learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, Guntur District,^ for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, I860. 3

¶22

Heard Sri K.Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the Ic petitioner and Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special^{AssistantPublic} Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.2

¶23

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that petitioner is a practicing Advocate and Respondent No.I/de facto complainant is his client and that the Petitioner met him in one function. He would submit that a false case was lodged against the Petitioner, only to avoid the payment of fees to him. It is also submitted that the^witnessNo.4 is an interested witness. It is also contended that, even if the Court, believes the entire case of the prosecution, there are no ingredients^toattractthe offences punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C, since^itis alleged that

¶24

^ In short, ‘trial court’

¶25

^ In short, ‘I.P.C’

¶26

1 In short ‘Cr.P.C’

¶27

VJP.I CrI. P. No.214of2020.

¶28

¶29

the petitioner slapped the respondent No. I with hand which is not a dangerous weapon, therefore prays for the indulgence of the Court for quashment of the case against the Petitioner.

¶30

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that this Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for conducting a mini trial, that Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. against the accused, that there is no definition under the Code to define a dangerous weapon and that sometimes^hand may turn as a dangerous weapon, which may cause death of the person. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

A fair look at the material on record would show that specific allegations are made against the petitioner that he dealt a blow over the Respondent No. I due to which he sustained injuries. Factual aspects of the matter cannot be looked into at this stage, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As such, this Court does not find any fit circumstances to interfere.

¶32

In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶33

SD/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, Guntur^District. 2. One CC to SRI. K RAMA KOTESWARA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC's to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT]

¶38

Three CD Copies PRK

'N.

HIGH COURT

?■ . >• ^ DATED:17/11/2023

¶43

ORDER

¶44

CRLP.No.214 of 2020

¶45

OF
.•0>
o
c>
/ X
:J5 ' APR 2G2'| £
A

¶46

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

A Madhsudhana Rao v. Chintala Phanidra Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Madhsudhana Rao v. Chintala Phanidra Rao

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

Teki Venkateswara Rao Vs Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P

Ch. Srinivas Goud Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India Limtied

Sunkara Sunil Kumar, Vs The Station House Officer

Nandhini Constructions, Vs The State of Telangana

A.K.Dhanapal Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Prasad Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh