Disposed

Koppula Muni Vahini v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Aug 2023CRLP/4001/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the Magistrate failed to implement his own order allowing 21 documents. Directed the Magistrate to receive all 21 documents subject to objections on relevancy raised by respondents, assigning reasons if any are rejected.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Magistrate to accept all 21 documents subject to objections by the respondents on relevancy and to assign reasons if any are rejected.

Koppula Muni Vahini Vs the State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition No.4001 of 2023

¶3

Order:

¶4

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner to direct the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, to implement the order, dated 12.04.2023 passed in Crl.MP.No.1006 of 2023 in C.C.No.34 of 2017.

¶5

A charge sheet has been filed as against the respondents Nos.2 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506, 323 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.34 of 2017 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

¶6

Pending the said C.C., the defacto complainant filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1006 of 2023 under Section 242 Cr.P.C., stating that the case is coming up for trial and in order to prove the case of the defacto complainant, the defacto complainant has given list of documents which are 21 in numbers to be received by the Court. It is further stated that the documents are essential for the just decision of the case.

¶7

On the other hand, the respondents filed their counter stating

¶8

that the documents relying upon by the defacto complainant have no

¶9

¶10

relevancy to the case and the said documents have been filed only to drag on the proceedings and in order to misguide the court. Stating so, the respondents prayed to dismiss the petition filed by the defacto complainant.

¶11

By an order, dated 12.04.2023, the learned Magistrate allowed the petition and the documents were received subject to proof and relevancy. The learned Magistrate further observed that if the documents are received, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents/accused as they will have an ample opportunity to cross examine the witness regarding the documents. It is further observed that mere receiving the document does not mean admitting the document.

¶12

In pursuant to the order passed, the learned Magistrate has received only six documents at the time of examination of PW1 i.e. Ex.P2 to P7. In respect of other documents, no reasons were stated for not receiving them and marking. In connection with that, the present petition has been filed by the defacto complainant.

¶13

The learned Magistrate having observed to the extent that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents/accused, if the documents are received, as they will have an ample opportunity to cross examine

¶14

¶15

the witness regarding the documents, there is absolutely no reasons assigned by the Magistrate as to why the rest of the documents have not been received by him. Whether the documents relied upon by the defacto complainant have relevancy or not, can be decided only when the objections are made by the respondents herein. Having allowed the petition filed by the defacto complainant, the Magistrate ought to have received all the documents subject to objection raised by the respondents with regard to the admissibility or relevancy of those documents.

¶16

Section 242 (2) Cr.P.C., contemplates that “the Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution or defacto complainant, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.

¶17

Section 242(3) Cr.P.C., contemplates that “on the date so fixed, the Magistrate shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution: Provided that the Magistrate may permit the cross- examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross- examination.”

¶18

¶19

In the present case on hand, surprisingly the learned Magistrate though passed an order in allowing the petition filed by the defacto complainant, accepted only seven documents instead of 21 documents. When once the petition has been allowed the Magistrate is bound to adhere to the order passed by him.

¶20

In the aforesaid circumstances, the petition is disposed of, directing the Magistrate to accept the said documents subject to objections raised by the respondents herein whether such documents have relevancy to the said case or not.

¶21

It is needless to mention here that the learned Magistrate is at liberty, in any case, if he comes to a conclusion that the documents have no relevancy to the facts of the case on the objection raised by the respondents herein, to reject the acceptance of those documents. The Magistrate is also directed to assign reasons while rejecting the said documents.

¶22

Accordingly, with the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶23

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶24

________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

¶25

Date:21.08.2023 ARB

¶26

¶27

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶28

Criminal Petition No.4001 of 2023

¶29

Date: 21.08.2023

¶30

ARB

Koppula Muni Vahini v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koppula Muni Vahini v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maddi Madhavi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Guntupalli Uma Maheswari at Smt.P.R.Uma Maheswari Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Garikapati Manikanta Vs the State of Ap

Busamma Gaari Veerabadrappa Vs Kuruba Kavitha

Busammagari Laxmidevi Vs Kuruba Jayamma

Kamineni Janardhan Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh