A single judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh discharged Section 482 CrPC petitions seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and stay. The trial was at an advanced stage (fixed for arguments), leading the Court to dismiss the petitions.
The criminal petition to quash proceedings and grant stay was dismissed; all incidental petitions were closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MONDAY JHE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2967 OF 2018
Between:
...Petitioners/AI to A4
AND
...Respondents
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 quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No. 87/2017onthefileofthecourtof the Special Sessions Judge for SCs/STTs Cases, AP, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District, AP in so far as petitioners/AI to A4 areconcerned.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2018
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 grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners/AI to A4 in Spl.S.C.No. 87/2017 on the file of the Special Sessions
T
/
/
Judge for SCs/STTs Cases, AP, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District, AP, pending disposal of the above CrI.P.
¥
i i .. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of 'Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Janakirami Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri G.R. Sudhakar Advocate for the Respondent No.2
The Court made the following:
I
/ /
/
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2967 OF 2018
ORDER:
The present criminal petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to Special S.C.No.87 of 2017, on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for SCs/STs cases, Ananthapuramu and to quash the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 355, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”) and Section 3(l)(g)(r)(s) of the SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
- Learned counsel for the respondents unequivocally submitted that before the Court below trial has commenced and the case is coming for arguments. Therefore, at this stage it is not appropriate to this Court to meddle with the trial.
- The Honhle Supreme Court in N.Soundaram v. P.K.Pounraj^ held that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should not be exercised to stifle a
(2014) 10 see 616
2
legitimate prosecution, more so when the case is fixed for defence evidence.
- Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendinginthis
Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
Sd/- U SRI DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
<br>
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To, 1. The Senior Civil Judge; Gooty, Ananthapur District. 2. The Special Sessions Judge for SCs/STs Cases: Ananthapuramu, Ananthapur District. 3. The Station House Officer, Guntakal Rural Police Station, Ananthapur District. 4. One CC to Sri. K Janakirami Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCS to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies SMA VNA ^Vl/t^
4^IGH COURT -i v- [5Ai;ED:1 1/12/2023 f. %; i
SMA
ORDER
CRLP.No.2967 of 2018
DISMISSING THE CRLP
9 . V )
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash prosecution proceedings or grant stay at a stage where the trial has commenced and the case is fixed for arguments.
Whether Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to interfere with a prosecution that is at a fag end of trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N. Soundaram v. P. K. PounrajReferred¶35
N.Soundaram v. P.K.Pounraj^ (2014) 10 see 616
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Boyinapalli Sathyanarayana
Gunthakal Patil Hemakoti Reddy
Gunthakal Patil Manthakallu Reddy
Gunthakal Patil Thimma Reddy
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Mangadoddi Sreeramulu
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
