Dismissed

Koduri Chavaramma v. The State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Jan 2024CRLP/11166/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench heard an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashment of proceedings. The court referenced settled law regarding police investigation rights and dismissed the petition, directing the parties to assail the charge sheet. This specific order dismissed the related stay application.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 11166 of 2018 is dismissed; liberty to assail charge sheet granted.

Koduri Chavaramma Vs The State of A.P. — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11166 OF 2018

¶6

Between:

¶7

Koduri Chavaramma, W/o. Sabari, Aged about 50 years, Occ Household, R/o. D.No. 4, PS Palem, Challareddypalem Village Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶8

...Petitioner/Accused No.18

¶9

AND

¶10

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana^{andtheStateof} A.P., Hyderabad.

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

Pikki Kasi Rao, s/o. Appanna, aged 49 years, R/o. Vodarevu Village Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶13

...Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶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 quash the entire proceedings^inCrime No. 102 of 2018 of Chirala Rural Police Station.

¶15

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2018

¶16

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 further proceedings including arrest of the Petitioner in Crime No. 102 of 2018 of Chirala Rural Police Station, Prakasam District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing^{theMemorandum} of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI ,Advocate for the Petitioner^andthe Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent^No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 11166 OF 2018

¶20

ORDER;

¶21

The present Criminal Petition is filed assailing FIR^No.102 of 2018 dated 21.08.2018 of Chirala Police Station,^Prakasam District. The police have registered the crime for^the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 477-A, 408, 120b^readwith 34 of IPC.

¶22

The 2«d respondent/de facto complainant lodged a report^to Police Chirala alleging that the petitioner/accused^haveinduced the fishermen, that they will arrange Rs. 1,00,000/-^ofloanfrom Union Bank of India, Chirala Branch with low interest rate, collected an amount of Rs.2,200/- from each fishermen^onthe pretext of maintenance charges, collected the copies of ID proofs and Photographs of fishermen, taken their signatures and thumb impressions on loan proposal forms and other documents, later the accused cheated the fishermen by distributing Rs.60,000/to Rs.80,000/cash instead of arranging fishnets worth Rs. 1,00,000/- and also cheated^some other fishermen by giving neither fishnets nor the cash though the bank was granted loan to them. Thus the accused A. 1 to

¶23

¶24

A.41 criminally conspired, cheated the innocent and illiterate fishermen and misappropriated the cash by taking Rs.30,000/from each account from fishermen totally misappropriated an amount of Rs.4.5 crores.

¶25

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that as no stay was granted by this Court, police have investigated^the case and subsequently filed the charge sheet. The Apex^Court M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of

¶26

Maharashtra ^ held that:

¶27

“11. As per the settled position of law, it is the right conferred upon the investigating agency to conduct the investigation and reasonable time should be given to the investigating agency to conduct the investigation unless it is found^thatthe allegations in the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence at all or the complaint is barred by any law. ”

¶28

The Supreme Court has indicated in several decisions^that the High Court should be loathe to interfere at the^thresholdto thwart the proceedings at the nascent stage under Section⁴⁸² Cr.P.C.

¶29

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to allow the petition. however, petitioners are at liberty to assail the charge^sheet.

¶30

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶31

2021 see online Se315

¶32

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶36

SD/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SEC IN OFFICER

The Station House Officer, Chirala Rural Police^{Station,Prakasam} District.

¶41

One CC to Sri. Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, Advocate^[OPUC]

¶42

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of^A.P.at Amaravathi.[OUT]

¶43

Three CD Copies VNA

HIGH COURT

DATED:11/01/2024

ORDER

CRLP.No.11166 of 2018

¶48

DISMISSING THE CRLP

Koduri Chavaramma v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koduri Chavaramma v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chilukuri Santhosh Vs Alluri Venkata Satyanarayana Raju

Chilukuri Kasi Annapurnamma, Vs Alluri Venkata Satyanarayana Raju

Chilukuri Sumanth Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Elisha Vs Public Prosecutor

Karneti Ravi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Uppalapati Venkata Ramana Murthy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Acb