Dismissed

Nunna Mehar v. The State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Nov 2023CRLP/327/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that a revision petition filed against an acquittal under Section 256 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as it should have been challenged via an appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. with leave.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; miscellaneous petitions pending in this Criminal Petition stand closed.

Nunna Mehar Vs The State of Ap — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVAT/^SJv\ :*.?V TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER 3 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE ef 9‘o 1 C>^

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 327 OF 2Q1«

¶5

Between;

¶6

«age, G^pafapuL'^Mantl, Wesfood^^^^^

¶7

...PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT

¶8

¶9

1. The State of AP. Rep by the Public Prosecutor atAmaravati ’ High Court of Andhra Pradesh

¶10

Thalluri Satyanarayana, S/o Subba rao Aged 47 ...RESPONDENT Pasivedala, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District years, Gouripalli Post

¶11

...RESPONDENT/ ACCUSED

¶12

Petition under Section 482 stated in th» u . ^ circumstances P e se t hT peased to quash the proceedings Criminal Revision Petition No. 57 of 2016 on the . e Of ,de IX Additional Sessions Judge, Eiuru West Godavari Districtiin CC 404 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nidadavole West Godavari District.

¶13

LA. NO; 1 OF 7n<i«

¶14

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 suspend the order in Criminal Revision Petition No 57 of 2016 on the file of the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Eiuru West Godavari District in CC 404 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Nidadavole West Godavari District Pending disposal of the criminal petition

¶15

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M K. Raj Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared by person or Advocate for the Respondent No. 2

¶16

The Court made the following;

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION No.327 OF 2018

¶19

ORDER;

¶20

The petitioner herein is the complainant in C.C.No.404^of 2009, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidadavolu.

¶21

The petitioner herein filed a complaint on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidadavolu, under^Section190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(for short “Cr.P.C.”), for taking action against the respondent/accused, for the offences punishable under^Sections 420, 386, 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”).

¶22

Learned Magistrate has forwarded the complaint to the police for investigation. The police have filed a final report stating that the case is civil in nature. Aggrieved by the^saidactofthe police in referring the case as civil in nature, the petitioner herein filed a protest petition before the learned Magistrate. To examine the complainant and the witnesses, the Court^below has granted as many as 13 adjournments and directed the complainant to appear before the Court to commence pre-charge

¶23

¶24

trial by passing conditional order dated 13.05.2014 and the case was posted to 24.06.2014 and on 24.06.2014, the complainant was called and no representation on his behalf. Therefore,^the Court below was constrained to dismiss the complaint under Section 256 Cr.P.C. and acquitted the accused.

¶25

Aggrieved by the said proceedings. dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused, the petitioner herein, who is the complainant in C.C.No.404 of 2009, filed the Criminal Revision Petition No.57 of 2016, on the file of the IX Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Kowur, with a delay of 140 days. However, learned Sessions Judge has condoned the delay of 140 days and the case was taken on file and eventually, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner/complainant, observing that illiteracy and iinnocence of the petitioner/complainant is not a ground to set aside the dismissal order, which was passed by the learned Magistrate. 5. Aggrieved by the order in Crl.R.P.No.57 of 2016, which was dismissed for the aforesaid grounds by conforming the order of the learned Magistrate, the present criminal petition was filed on the ground that dismissing the revision petition amounts to abuse of process of law and the Court ought to have given one

¶26

¶27

opportunity to prove his case by way of proceedings,^beforethe learned Magistrate.

¶28

¶29

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused would submit that the present criminal petition is not maintainable,^on the ground that against the acquittal order, which was passed under Section 256 of Cr.P.C., an appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable before this Court, on obtaining^leave under Sub-Section (4) of Section 378 of Cr.P.C. Instead of that, the petitioner herein filed a revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., on the file of the IX Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Kowur, which is not maintainable. Therefore, he urges to dismiss the criminal petition, as the veiy filing of the criminal revision petition before the Sessions Court is not maintainable.

¶30

) \

¶31

As per Section 256 of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate^has dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused. Therefore, it shall be treated as an acquittal. Against the acquittal, the petitioner has to file an appeal before the High Court^under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., on obtaining leave under Sub-Section(4) of Section 378 of Cr.P.C. As rightly contested by learned^counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/respondent, the revision

¶32

¶33

filed before the Sessions Court, is not petition, which was maintainable.

¶34

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending^inthis

¶35

Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶36

SD/- G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

SECTION OFFICER

¶39

To,
1. The IX Additional Sessions Judge, Eluru West Godavari District
2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Nidadavole West Godavari District
3. One CC to Sri M K Raj Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]
4. Two CC to the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh
[OUT]
5. Three CD Copies

psr

PRK ft

HIGH COURT

DATED:21/11/2023

ORDER

CRLP.No.327 of 2018

^OFANn^l^
’S>
I u AW 202^ g)
Current Section *

¶47

^ (x)p!Q^
PllL.

¶48

DISMISSING fHE CRIMINAL PETITION

Nunna Mehar v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nunna Mehar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Srinivasu Vs State of Ap

B Siva Sankar Reddy Vs B Srinivasul Reddy

K.V.R.S.N.S. Kumar Vs the State of A.P.

Chelikani Subrahmanya Kameswara Varaprasad Vs The State of Aandhara Pradesh

Pamarthi Rajesh Khanna Vs M/s. Sanghamitra Finance Corp Auto Finances

K. Veera Venkta Sashi Bushan (A-1) Vs the State of Ap., and another