Disposed

Sri Vinod Kumar Kodali, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Nov 2023CRLP/2756/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., refused to quash a criminal complaint. Instead, it directed the police to conduct a fair investigation considering CCTV footage and adhered to Arnesh Kumar guidelines regarding arrest, leaving the matter pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

Directed the investigation officer to consider CCTV footage and finalize the investigation fairly; directed the police to follow Arnesh Kumar guidelines for arrest.

Sri Vinod Kumar Kodali, Vs State of Andhra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2756 of 2020

¶5

Between: 1. Sri Vinod Kumar Kodali, S/o. Prabhakar Rao, aged about 34 years, R/o. 317 beside High School, Chigurukota Village, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District.

¶6

1. Sri Prasha^nth Koganti, S/o. Srinivasa Rao, aged about 22 years, R/o. Guraia Road, Mudinepalli Village and Mandal, Krishna District.

¶7

1. Sri Katragadda Mahesh, S/o. Sambasiva Rao, aged about 27 years R/o Annavaram Road, Mudinepalli Village and Mandal, Krishna District. ...Petitioner/Accused

¶8

¶9

AShro°D R®P- by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...Respondent

¶10

1. Borra Seshu Babu, S/o. Late Soma Raju, aged about 41 years CasteGowdas, R/o. Vadali Village, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District. c1lLp"Na27l6’lf 20°2!? in I.A.No.02 of 2020 in

¶11

...Proposed Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶12

stated ^^2 of CrP.C praying that in the circumstances Sna Dircf Mudinepalii Poiice Stahon, I.A. NO: 1 OF 2090

¶13

stated fn the Mei; Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying fhat in the circumstances D eased ot stau TeM^f T '^'9'’ Court may be crime No 123/20 ^on the n®' the arrest of the petitionersⁱⁿ d loosartor mi 2h '^tidinepalli Police Station, Krishna District, pending oisposal for the above criminal petition. ^

¶14

of Grounds of rrlmrniioT,® hearing.upon perusing the Memorandum rIoT^diL^ Ad '^^^'■'"9 arguments of Sri Venkateswara the ResDondinfMiT ®d^°r P®*'''°"ers and the Public^{Prosecutoronbehalfof} ResSeit No 2 Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad, Advocate^forthe The Court made the following:

¶15

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2756 of 2020

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of^theCodeof Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”), by the^{Petitioners/AI} to A3, to quash the Crihie- No.123 of 2020 of Mudinepalli Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences^{punishableunder} Sections 384, 324, 341, 323, 506 read with 34 of I.P.C.

¶18

Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant^Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.1 and Sri Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. r- 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned^counselfor the petitioners would submit that the iDnIy grievance^{ofthepetitioners} is that when the Respondent No.2 came to the shop of the petitioners, he himself fell down in a drunken condition^duetowhich, he sustained the injury. He further submitted that^{everythingwas} recorded in the CCTV footage and that the police without considering the said facts, is proceeding with the matter, Both groups presented their respective reports to the police,^basingon which, a case and counter case tiive been registered^againstboth parties. He seeks for a direction to the police to^{considertheCCTV}

¶19

¶20

¶21

footage during the course of investigation and finalize the investigation in a fair manner.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 would submit^that the Court may pass appropriate orders giving direction to the police for a fair investigation in this matter.

¶23

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit^thatthe Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶24

Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, this Court has perused^{thematerialon} record. Though the petitioners filed a pen drive with^therecorded CCTV footage, this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot conduct mini trial and appreciate the facts and circumstances, at this stage. As the investigation is pending in this matter, it is apt to direct the investigating^officer is directed to conduct fair investigation taking into^{considerationofthe} CCTV footage and finalize the investigation.

¶25

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the investigation officer to consider the CCTV footage^{andfinalisethe} investigation, in a fair manner, as per law.

¶26

Petitioners are however at liberty to challenge the charge sheet, if any filed, if advised. Further, in view of^{theinterimorder} passed in this matter, not to arrest the petitioners, the police are

¶27

¶28

directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble^ApexCourtin the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar' in the^{eventofarrest}

¶29

of the petitioners.

¶30

As a sequel thereto, misceHdneous petitions pending, if any

shall stand closed.

' (2014) 8 see 273

SDI- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Station House Officer, Mudinepalli Police Station, Krishna District.

¶39

One CC to Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, Advocate [OPUC]

¶40

One CC to Sri Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] Pradesh at Imara^rni (oJ?f ^igh Court of Andhra

¶41

¶42

Three CD Copies

PRK

HIGH COURT

DATED:21/11/2023

ORDER

CRLP.No.2756 of 2020

■ ^6^
.<•,
i I 8 APR 2024 n
W'
1 -J-

¶49

Soopila^
P(Ui~
'22loi^Uf

¶50

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION

Sri Vinod Kumar Kodali, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vinod Kumar Kodali, v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yendluri Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Muppala Gnaneswara Rao Vs the State of Ap

Gorantla Ranganna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr Damerla Sai Baba Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pandem Rama Sita Vs Kakinati Sunitha

Timmiri Kuppu Ganesh Kumar at Timmirikuppusetti Ganesh Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh