Allowed

Vegesana Narendra Varma Raju ATVegesana Narendra Varma, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Nov 2023CRLP/9154/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a criminal petition filed by 12 accused persons under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court quashed criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 188 and 143 read with 149 IPC, citing violation of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in Cr.No.155 of 2023 against petitioners for offences under Sections 188 and 143 read with 149 IPC.

Vegesana Narendra Varma Raju ATVegesana… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY. THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9154 of 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

® Vegesana Narendra Varma S/o

¶8

LakshmiKrishnamPuram.Raju. Aged22 ward.55 years.Bapatla.R/o.BapatiaWB3-241.District.Vijaya Lakshmi Puram ’ Viiava^ D S/o.Chinthakayala Ayyannapathrudu. Aged 37 years

¶9

Occ Andhra Pradesh State General Secretary for Telugu 6esL Party r}o Narsipatnam. Anakapalli District (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District).

¶10

1. Inaganti Gandhi. S/o. Sambasiva Rao. Aged 55 years R/o 3-102A Government Hospital Daggara. Appikatla. Guntur District.

¶11

28/A Aged 53 years. R/o. Door.No 4-728/A. S.N.P. Agraharam. Bapatla. Bapatla District.

¶12

Karumuri Nagaraju. S/o. Nageswararao. Aged 57 years. R/o. 2-85

¶13

Bharthipudi. Guntur. Guntur. District

¶14

Kolluri Venkatrao. S/o. Sambaiah. Aged 47 years. R/o. 1-3-30/1. Chilara Golla

¶15

Palem. 9 Ward. Bapatla. Bapatla District

¶16

Satyanarayana, Aged 45 years, R/o.

¶17

’^'yeXf R/^S 42Tvi^1"1 S/o. Mallikarjuna Rao, aged⁵⁵ years, R/o. 3.422, Vrjayalakshm,puram, 25 ward, Bapatla, Bapatla Distriot

¶18

U.Kummari Anjireddy. S/o. Koti Reddy. Aged 35

¶19

Appikatla. Guntur District. years. R/o. Marripudi.

¶20

■..Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 12

¶21

AND

¶22

state of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Station House officer, Bapatia Rural Police Station, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶23

Pathan Karimulla Vali, S/o. Rasool Khan, Aged about 55 years, Occ; Village Revenue Officer, Adavi-1, Bapatia Mandal, Bapatia District.

¶24

...Respondents

¶25

Petition filed 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 Cr.No.155 of 2023 of Bapatia Rural Police Station Bapatia, Bapatia District.

¶26

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2023

¶27

Petition filed 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 in Cr.No.155 of 2023 of Bapatia Rural Police Station, Bapatia pending disposal of the criminal petition.

¶28

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V V Satish Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9l54 of 2023

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed, by the petitioners/A. I to A. 12 and A. 14, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in Cr.No. 155 of 2023 of Bapatia Rural Police Station, Bapatia, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 188 and 143 read^with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, I860 (in short ‘I.P.C.’).

¶33

Heard Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent No. I.

¶34

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners^andacceded to, by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the subject matter of this Criminal Petition is squarely covered by the Order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.459 of 2020, dated 09.11.2023,^{whereinthisCourtheld} as follows;

¶35

In the light of the language employed in the legal provision and the precedents referred supra, it is vivid that there^isadearbar under Section 195 (I) (a) (I) of Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance of any offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 ofIPC. except on the complaint, in writing, of the Public Servant concerned or of some other Public Servant to whom he is administratively -■y

¶36

¶37

¶38

subordinate. It is apt to refer t^^ the definition^{ofcomplaintas} contemplated in Cr.P.C, vide Section 2(d) “Section 2 (d) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

¶39

¶40

"complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report

¶41

Explanation.- A report made by a police ofifcer in^acasewhich discloses, after investigation, the commission of a noncognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint;^andthe police ofifcer by whom such report is made shall be^deemedto be the complainant;”

¶42

Admittedly, in the present case, without there being a complaint by the authority concerned, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC basing on a charge sheet ifled by the police, which is in utter violation of Section 195 I (a) (i) of Cr.P.C. Meaning^which,the cognizance taken by the Magistrate is not in accordance^withlaw and continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner for the offence under Section 188 of IPC would amount of abuse of process of the Court”

¶43

(emphasis supplied)

¶44

Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 143 r/w 149 I.P.C. is concerned, a bald statement is made by the informant shorn of any details. Even if the entire accusations made against the petitioners^{areconsideredas} true and correct, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners for

// h

h //

the offence punishable under Section 143 read with 149 I.P.C. Hence, continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sectipns 188 and 143 read with 149 IPC, is nothing but an abuse of process of Court.

¶50

K

¶51

Hence, following the Order passed by this Court^{inCriminalPetition} No.459 of 2020, dated 09.1 1.2023, and taking into^{considerationofthefacts} and circumstances of the case, this criminal petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/accused in Cr.No. 155 of 2023 of Bapatia

¶52

Rural Police Station, registered for the offences punishable^{underSections}

¶53

188 and 143 read with 149 I.P.C.

¶54

Pending applications, it any, shall stand closed.

¶55

SD/- K SRINIVASA RAJU i ASSISTANT REGISTRAR V

¶56

//TRUE COPY//

¶57

To,