Dismissed

Nannapaneni Ankineedu Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Dec 2023CRLP/7560/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court held that the allegations were disputed questions of fact requiring trial and found no grounds to quash the charge sheet at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; trial directed to be completed expeditiously; personal appearance of petitioners dispensed with.

Nannapaneni Ankineedu Prasad Vs The State of Andhra… — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

AND TWENTY THREE
q:
PRESENT \o~ '^1
4. .^J

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RaS^

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7560 OF 2019

¶6

Between:

¶7

Nannapaneni Ankineedu Prasad, S/o Late N. Ankamma, aged about 60 years, R/o Plot No. 16, Annamaya Colony, Nagaram, Hyderabad-5000⁸³ Telagnana State.

¶8

Meka Sushma, D/o N.Prasad, W/o Kiran Kumar, aged about 32 years, R/o Flat No.2d14, Baashyaam Pinnacle Crest Sholinganallur, O.M.R. Road Chennai-600219.

¶9

Nannapaneni Ankineedu Chowdary, S/o N.Prasad Rao, aged about 37 years R/o Plot No. 16, Annamaya Colony, Nagaram, Hyderabad-500083 Telagnana State.

¶10

...Petitioner/AI & A2 AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court Building at Amaravati. ...Respondent

¶12

Smt. Meka Viajaya Lakshmi, W/o Vijaya Mohan Rao, aged about 60 years, R/o Ward No.24, Old Ponoor, PonnurTown, Milk Dairy Road, Guntur District.

¶13

...Respondent

¶14

...Defacto Complainant/Respondents

¶15

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 allow the Criminal Petition and quash the Proceedings in C.C.No.393 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge,^Ponnur.

¶16

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶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 grant stay of all proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners in C.C.No.393 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

¶18

I.A. NO: 1 OF ?n9H

¶19

s?L?r,ss2E."": °r “ “ 5" ” •■• ™ RLP No. 7560 of 2019 pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

I.A, NO: 2 OF 202?

==S£r“

I.A. NO: 3 OF 20?.-^

c;s£r“""“—“

of Grounlflf r , o"""® “P°" 'P® Memorandum ounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A Chandraih Naidu, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No, 1 and of Sri S Siva Shanker Advocate for the Respondent No 2

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7560 OF 201Q

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The present criminal petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.393 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur and to quash the same.

¶30

The police have laid a charge sheet in Crime No. 193 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 448 , 509, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”), on the ground that: (a) A-1 to A-3 phoned to L.Ws.l & 3 and demanded to distribute their property. When L.Ws. 1 & 3 refused to distribute the same. A-1 to A-3 abused them on phone with filthy language and also threatened them on point of death. On 04.12.2016 L.W.2 came to the house of L.Ws.l and 3, on the same day A-2 trespassed into the house of L.Ws.l and 3 and demanded to distribute the property immediately. When L.Ws. 1 and 3 refused, all the accused abused the L.Ws.l and 3 with filthy language and also threatened them and went away.

¶31

¶32

(b) Again on 11.12.2016, when L.W.2 went to Vijayawada on his personal work, then A.3 trespassed into the house of the L.Ws 1 and 3 and abused them with filthy language and^also threatened them with dire consequences.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that A-3 alone came to the house of L.Ws.l and 3 and threatened them, A-1 and A-2 are not present. Therefore, prays to quash the C.C., which was registered against the accused.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondents relies on the order of this Court passed in Criminal Petition No.4814 of 2021 dated 01.09.2021, for the proposition that evidence has to be adduced before the trial Court and the trial Court has to appreciate^the said evidence in the final adjudication of the case and decide culpability or otherwise of the petitioners in commission of the said offences. This Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot go into the disputed question of facts in a petition filed seeking quash of the criminal proceedings.

¶35

There is a specific allegation in the charge sheet^thatA-1to A-3 telephoned to L.Ws.l and 3. No legal grounds were^raisedin the present criminal petition. Whether they have threatened^the L.Ws.l and 3 ?, is a disputed question of fact. Therefore, the

¶36

¶37

matter requires trial to decide the contentious issues,^whichare involved in this matter. Hence, this Court found no reasons to quash the charge sheet, at this stage. As the case pertains to 2019 Court below is directed to complete the trial, as expeditiously as possible.

¶38

¶39

Aceordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this^Court by an order dated 10.12.2019 dispensed with the personal appearance of the petitioners 1 and 2, who are accused 1 and 2. Hence, requested to continue the same. In view of the said request, the presence of the petitioners 1 and 2 is hereby dispensed with, during the course of trial. However, it is made clear that whenever their presence is required, they have to appear before the Court below.

¶41

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending^inthis

¶42

Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶43

Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Additional Junior Civil Judge: Ponnur, Guntur^District. 2. The Station House Officer, Ponnur Urban Police Station, Guntur District. 3. One CC to Sri. A Chandraih Naidu Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. S Siva Shanker Advocate [OPUC]

¶48

Two CCS to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of^{AndhraPradeshat} Amaravati [OUT]

¶49

Three CD Copies

SMA

vna

HIGH COURT

DATED:12/12/2023

ORDER

CRLP.No.7560 of 2019

.-f:
>■
4i-<br>3 0 APP 202^ r.r\j
■■ta!; Serjtiori ,
,<r-
-'.I’CVi

¶57

DISMISSING THE CRLP

Nannapaneni Ankineedu Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nannapaneni Ankineedu Prasad 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

B.Sathyanarayana Vs State of Ap.

Sri Dhanakshmi Spinning Mills Vs the State of A.P.

Sri Madineedi Venkata Ramakrishna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Chalasani Venkata Lakshmi Vs The State of Ap

B.Krishna naik Vs The State of Ap.

B.Pedda Venkataeswarlu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh And Another