Dismissed

G Narayana v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC30 Oct 2023CRLP/2894/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a notice to appear before the trial court at the fag end of proceedings regarding a death in motor vehicle accident. The court dismissed the petition, holding that at this stage, the High Court should not quash the prosecution which is substantially complete.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.2894 of 2019 dismissed and Criminal Petition No.8929 of 2017 closed.

G Narayana Vs the State of Ap — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2894 OF 2019 & 8929 OF 2017

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

Assailing the notice dated 13.02.2019 issued by the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur in C.C.No.450 of 2017, the present quash petition is filed to set-aside the above said notice.

¶4

The facts, that are germane or conducive for issuance of the impugned notice is that:

¶5

The petitioner has caused death of Gnana Prasanna, daughter of respondent Nos.2 & 3 herein droving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, for which a report was lodged to the Mydukur Urban Police by the 2^nd respondent herein. Mydukur Urban Police has registered the crime as FIR No.126 of 2017 U/s. 304(A) I.P.C., and Sections 134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 Motor Vehicle Act and after investigation has laid the charge sheet before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur to punish the petitioner herein who is the accused for the above mentioned charges. The charge

¶6

sheet was taken on file and registered as C.C.No.450 of 2017. The accused in C.C.No.450 of 2017 has filed Crl.P.No.8929 of 2017 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the C.C.No.450 of 2017. While

¶7

¶8

TRR , J Crl.P.Nos.2894 of 2019 &

¶9

8929 of 2017

¶10

pending the Crl.P.No.8929 of 2017 a Crl.M.P.No.9612 of 2017 was filed U/s.482 r/w 320(c) Cr.P.C. to record compromise and to quash C.C.No.450 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur. The said Crl.M.P.No.9612 of 2017 which was for recording of compromise was allowed and recorded the compromise by an order dated 10.10.2017 and quashed the C.C.No.450 of 2017.

¶11

Be that as it may, the deceased parents and another has filed interlocutory applications 1 & 3 to set aside the compromise recorded in Crl.M.P.No.9612 of 2017 on the grounds the accused has obtained the compromise without impleading them as party respondents in Crl.P.No.8929 of 2017 fraudulently and I.A.Nos.2 & 4 to implead them as party respondents to the Crl.P.No.8929 of 2017.

¶12

The said interlocutory applications were allowed by this Hon’ble Court to rectify its mistake on the grounds that fraud vitiate everything, inter alia it is observed that act of the Court shall prejudice no man, and recording of compromise legally not permissible without impleading legal representatives of the deceased and re-opened the Crl.P.No.8929 of 2017 on to the file by setting aside the compounding the offence dated 10.10.2017.

¶13

¶14

TRR , J Crl.P.Nos.2894 of 2019 &

¶15

8929 of 2017

¶16

This Court also directed to carryout the amendments in the Crl.P.No.8929 of 2017 by setting aside the Order dated 10.10.2017. As no stay was granted by this Hon’ble Court, the Court below has proceeded with the trial and examined as much as P.W.Nos.1 to 12 witnesses and where the Court below has issued notices to the respondent Nos.3,4 and 5 vide proceedings dated 13.02.2019, the said notice was assailed in the present criminal petition No.2894 of 2019, on the ground, whilst the Crl.P.No.8929 of 2017 was pending before this Court, the Court below ought not have been issued notices to the respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5 as such it is urged to this Court to quash the notice dated 13.02.2019.

¶17

It is asserted in the memorandum of grounds that the Court below has examined P.W.Nos.1 to 12 witnesses in support of the prosecution case, and it is at the stage of arguments.

¶18

Irrespective merits and demerits of the case the Apex Court in N.Soundaram Vs. P.K.Pounraj and another¹ and in Anita Maria Dias and another Vs. State of Maharashtra² , has held that when the trial is at fag end High Court should refrain from exercising its power to stifle a legitimate prosecution or in other reuse it would be decided by the trial Court on merits.

¶19

1 2014 (10) SCC 616

¶20

2 Dated 19.01.2018 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 199 OF 2018 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.978 OF 2018

¶21

¶22

TRR , J Crl.P.Nos.2894 of 2019 &

¶23

8929 of 2017

¶24

The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur has issued notice dated 13.02.2019 to appear before the Court and the said notice assailed in this criminal petition no legal grounds urged in this criminal petition and the grounds urged is on facts not relating to issuance of notice, and as observed supra, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and the trial is in fag end, in view of the judgment of Apex Court referred supra and there are no valid grounds raised to quash the notice, even assuming the notice is not valid as the petitioner/accused has attended the Court in pursuant to the impugned notice for that all these reasons the criminal petition fails and liable to be dismissed, resultantly dismissed.

¶25

Accordingly, the Crl.P.No.2894 of 2019 is dismissed.

¶26

In view of the orders passed in Crl.P.No.2894 of 2019 nothing survives in Crl.P.No.8929 of 2017. Accordingly, the Crl.P.No.8929 of 2017 is closed.

¶27

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

¶28

_________________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶29

Date: 30.10.2023 Pmk

¶30

TRR , J Crl.P.Nos.2894 of 2019 &

¶31

¶32

137

¶33

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶34

CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.2894 of 2019 & 8929 of 2017

¶35

Date: 30.10.2023 Pmk

G Narayana v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Narayana v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Boyapati Ramesh, Vs The State of A.P.

Gummadi Malyadri, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Desai Amaranath Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Garikapati Bullinayana Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Gangadari Narayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Babu Reddy Vs the State of Ap