Quashed

Sikharam Surendra Chary v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Feb 2023CRLP/7460/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings for offences under IPC Sections 420, 493-495, 498-A, the High Court quashed the FIR. The decision relied on the de facto complainant and daughter stating they are not interested in pursuing the complaint as the family is living happily.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.173 of 2019 against the petitioner were quashed.

Sikharam Surendra Chary Vs The State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATHI

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7460 OF 2019

¶4

Sikharam Surendra Chary … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor & another. … Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.N.Sriram Murthy

¶8

Counsel for the respondents : Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr.Sriman

¶9

ORDER :

¶10

Heard Mr.N.Sriram Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Sriman, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶11

The Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.173 of 2019 on the file of Sattenapalli Town Police Station, registered against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 493, 494, 495, 498-A of Indian Penal Code, on various grounds.

¶12

However, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent had drawn the attention of this Court to the Memo filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, wherein it is inter alia stated that the 2^nd respondent / de facto complainant is not intending to pursue F.I.R.No.173 of 2019 as his

¶13

¶14

daughter Siva Naga Malleswari is married and she is living happily with her husband and child.

¶15

In fact, on the previous date of hearing, the de facto complainant along with his daughter/R3, who are identified by the counsel for the 2^nd respondent appeared before this Court and they orally stated that they are not interested in pursuing the complaint lodged against the petitioner/accused.

¶16

In the light of the Memo and the facts and circumstances stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner, are not warranted.

¶17

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.173 of 2019 on the file of Sattenapalli Town Police Station against the petitioner are hereby quashed.

¶18

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶19

_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶20

Date: 09.02.2023. BLV

¶21

¶22

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7460 OF 2019

¶24

Dt: 09.02.2023

¶25

BLV

Sikharam Surendra Chary v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sikharam Surendra Chary 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thotakura Pavan Vs The State of Ap

Thotakura Parisudha Rao Vs The State of A.P

Harikasree Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Manukonda Narasimha Sambi Reddy, Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

B.Appa Rao Vs P.Venkata Ramireddy

Mr. Srikanth Gowd Vs State of Andhra Pradesh