Dismissed

Bandaru Venkata Ranga Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 May 2024CRLP/132/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CRLP No. 132 of 2020, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh considered a petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 324 IPC. The court held that allegations require comprehensive investigation and dismissed the petition while directing adherence to Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash proceedings dismissed; police directed to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and Amesh Kumar guidelines.

Bandaru Venkata Ranga Rao, Vs The State of Andhra… — Bail and Remand | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 132 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Bandaru Venkata Ranga Rao,, S/o Late Laxmana Rao, Age 47 years Occ Business, R/o 7-1-546 and 547, Bandimet, Secunderabad-3.

¶8

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh,, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶11

Thota Purushottam,, S/o Bhaskara Rao, Age 45 years, Occ Business, R/o 62-5-50, Nunnagupulla Vari Veedhi,J Rama Raopet, Jagannadhapuram, Kakinada, East Godavari District

¶12

...RESPONDENT/STATE

¶13

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C praying^thatinthe circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court to quash the proceedings in FIR No.200/2019 on the file of Kakinada I Town Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the^Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri E V V S RAVI KUMAR .Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri_Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶15

The Court made the following ORDER :

¶16

APHC010008132020

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶18

[3396]

¶19

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶20

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶21

PRESENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 132/2020

¶24

Between:

¶25

Bandaru Venkata Ranga Rao

¶26

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶27

AND

¶28

The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) and Others

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶30

TEWS RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶31

2.G RAMA GOPAL

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶33

The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of^theCodeof Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”) has been^filed,bythe petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.200 of 2019 on the file of Kakinada I Town^{PoliceStation,} Kakinada, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code,¹⁸⁶⁰ (in short‘I.P.C.’).

¶34

¶35

VJP,J CrI P.No.132 of 2020

¶36

Heard Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. R.Mythreyi, learned counsel representing Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Ms. D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.1 is in attendance. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that it is purely a civil matter. A false case is lodged against the petitioner, accordingly, prays to allow the petition by quashing^thecase.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that there is a dispute between the two parties regarding the borrowal of money by the petitioner from the complainant. In that process, when the complainant approached the petitioner seeking return of their money, he was beaten and he suffered injuries and when he was in hospital, his statement has been recorded^and thereby a case has been registered for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C.

¶38

Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both parties, a fair look at the averments^made in the complaint, prima facie allegations are there against the petitioner to attract the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial to find out whether the allegations made are correct or not. The allegations attributed against the

¶39

¶40

VJP,J Cri p No 132 of 2020

¶41

petitioner require comprehensive investigation. In that view, the petition deserves dismissal.

¶42

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner expressed his apprehension of arrest by the police.

¶43

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the offence registered against the Petitioner is punishable^withlessthan seven years period of imprisonment and the Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶44

Considering the submissions made, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the concerned police authorities shall scrupulously follow the procedure prescribed under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., and the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amesh Kumar v. State of Bihar^.

¶45

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any.

¶46

shall stand closed.

¶47

SD/- SK.MOHAMMED RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Station House Officer,Kakinada I Town Police Station,Kakinada,East Godavari District.

¶52

OneCcTo Sri. E VV S Ravi Kumar Advocate [OPUC]

¶53

One Cc To Sri.G.Rama Gopal,Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

Two Ccs To Sri. Public Prosecutor,High Court Of^{AndhraPradeshAt} Amaravathi Advocate [OUT]

¶55

THREE CD COPIES

TAC

HIGH COURT

DATED;02/05/2024

ORDER

CRLP.No.132 of 2020

OF
O
o
%
3:
;.\o 0 9 AUG 202^ mill
5^ ^ Current Seoiion ^

¶62

DISMISSING THE CRLP

Bandaru Venkata Ranga Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandaru Venkata Ranga Rao, 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

Jasthi Manoj Praveen Kumar Vs Jasthi Chandrika

Doddi Surya Venkata Satya Musali Nookeswar Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Jana Durga Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kolan Shekar Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Ravipati Venu Babu Vs Nalamothu Ekambareswara Rao

Kompella Surya Lalitha Prasad Vs State of Andhra Pradesh