Disposed

Karagana Santha Rao v. State of Ap.

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Dec 2023CRLP/3076/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal petition filed to quash Section 498-A proceedings. The court directed the separation of the defacto-complainant's case from the accused petitioners' case and dispensed the appearance of three petitioners, requiring accused A-2 to represent A-3 to A-5, during the trial.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition disposed. Direction to trial court to separate complainant's case from accused cases. Appearance of A-3, A-4, A-5 dispensed; A-2 to present on behalf of A-3 to A-5.

Karagana Santha Rao Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO"

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3076 OF 2018

¶6

Between:

¶7

Karagana Santha Rao, S/o Surayanarayana, Aged 30 years, R/o. Srikakulam Town and District

¶8

Karagana Suryanarayana, S/o Late Ugadi, Aged 50 years, Occ: DPS Worker, FCI, R/o. Kancherapalem., Visakapatanam District

¶9

Karagana Adilaxmi, W/o Suryanarayana, Aged 45 years, R/o. Kancharapalem., Visakapatanam

¶10

Khazipeta Jaya, W/o Gopi, Aged 32 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Amerapeta. Hyderabad

¶11

Yeluri Chinnammalu, W/o Hanumanthu, Aged 28 years, R/o. Vullagallu. Ongole., Prakasam District ...Petitioners (A1 to A5)

¶12

¶13

The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,. High Court at Hyderabad.

¶14

...Respondent

¶15

Appamma, W/o Savalapurapu Krishna. Aged 31 years, R/o. Gandhi Nagar Street., Mettakkivalasa., Amadalavalasa., Srikakulam District

¶16

...Respondent/De-facto Complainant

¶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 Quash the Proceedings in C.C.No.182/2016 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of first Class., Amadalavalasa.

¶18

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2018

¶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 Petitioners/Accused No. 182/2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class., Amadalavalasa., pending disposal of the above criminal Petition.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

\ C

¶23

7 . /

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶25

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3076 OF 2018

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

The present criminal petition is filed to call for^therecords pertaining to C.C.No.l82 of 2016, on the file of the^{learnedJudicial} Magistrate of First Class, Amadalavalasa and to quash^thesame, on the ground that the ingredients of Section 498-A^oftheIndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”) has no application^andthe offence has taken place in July, 2005 and the report was lodged before the police in the year 2016. On the above said grounds the petitioners/A-2 to A-5 urged to quash the proceedings.

¶28

This Court directed the petitioners herein to serve^anoticeon the 2"d respondent/Defacto-complainant. However, learned^counsel for the petitioners unable to serve a notice on the 2^^ respondent / Defacto-complainant.

¶29

At this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioners reported that A-2 to A-5 are residing in distinct places, therefore, he requested to dispose of the criminal petition by dispensing^withthe presence of the petitioners/A-2 to A-5, before the trial Court, during the course of trial.

¶30

¶31

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits^thatthe whereabouts of the defacto-complainant as well as the^A-1werenot known to the petitioners/A-2 to A-5. Therefore, he requested this Court to direct the Court below to separate the case^ofA-1andto proceed with the trial with the case, against A-2 to^A-5.

¶33

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel^forthe petitioners, this Court is inclined to dispose of the criminal petition with a direction to the jurisdictional Magistrate to separate the case of A-1 from A-2 to A-5 and to proceed with the trial.

¶34

With regard to dispensing with the presence of the petitioners/A-2 to A-5, the appearance of the A-3 to A-5 is hereby dispensed with. A-2 shall present before the trial Court, on behalf of A-3 to A-5. The Court below shall proceed with the trial and dispose of the C.C.No.l82 of 2016, within a period of six(06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶35

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶36

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendingⁱⁿ this

¶37

Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶38

SDI- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District. 2. One CC to Sri V Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies sree

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/12/2023

ORDER

CRLP.No.3076 of 2018

DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

Karagana Santha Rao v. State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karagana Santha Rao v. State of Ap.

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

D.Prameela Vs State of Ap

Veluri Sanath Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Chatakala Veena Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Dhana Koteswara Rao Vs State of Ap

Kadirisani Sailaja at Veeraballi Sailaja W/o Nagarjuna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Ansar Basha Vs State of Ap.