Partly allowed

V.Ramprasad v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Feb 2024CRLP/209/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash sections 354 r/w 34 IPC against two accused persons. The Court held that specific allegations of outraging modesty were absent against them and no common object under Section 149 IPC existed for this offence, as the dispute was primarily over land for a temple.

What did the court decide?

Section 354 r/w 34 of the IPC was quashed against petitioners/accused Nos. 5 and 6. The lower court was directed to proceed with proceedings for other offences.

V.Ramprasad Vs State of Ap — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 209 OF 2019

¶6

Between:

¶7

Viswanadhapalli Ramprasad, (A-5) S/o. Narasimha Murty, aged 38 years, Gangadupalem, Elamanchili Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶8

Vydani Dharma Rao, (A-6) S/o. Raju, aged 50 years, Gangadupalem, Elamanchili Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Petitioners/Accused No.5 & 6

¶9

AND

¶10

State of AP., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravathi.

¶11

Illingi Parvathi, W/o. Hariprasad, aged about 41 years, Gangadupalem, Elamanchili Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining^{toPRCNo.11of2015} on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Narasapur, West Godavari District, and quash the same pertaining to Petitioners i.e., A-5 and A-6 in the PRC No. 11 of 2015 arisen out of Crime No.69/2008 on the file of Elamanchili P.S.

¶14

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is filed 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 including appearance of the petitioners pertaining to PRC No. 11 of 2015, on the file of Additional Judicial first Class Magistrate at Narasapur, West Godavari District, pending disposal of main CRLP No. 209 of 2019. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing^{theMemorandum} of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K L N Swamy, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri. Puvvadi Venkateswarlu Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶16

The Court made the following Order:

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION No.209 OF 2019

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The present criminal petition is filed to call for the records relating to PRC.No.ll of 2015, on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur and to quash the same pertaining to petitioners herein, who are arrayed as accused Nos.5 and 6 in the S.R.No.3575 of 2015 in Crime No.69 of 2009.

¶21

On the report lodged by the 2"d respondent herein, the police has registered the crime for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 447, 427, 323, 354 and 509 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”) and later investigated the case and^laid a charge sheet to punish the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 447, 427, 323, 509 r/w 149 deleting^Section 354 of I.P.C against Crime No.69 of 2009 of Elamanchali Police Station.

¶22

Brief facts of the case are that:

¶23

The 2"d respondent/defato-complainant-Illingi Parvathi, deposed that she got Ac.0.10 cents of property in lanka^lands of Elamanchili Mandal, her brother-in-law Srirama Chandra Varma has also got Ac.0.10 cents of property in lanka landⁱⁿ Elamanchili

¶24

¶25

¶26

Mandal and that the elders of their village asked the 2"^ respondent/defato-complainant and Srirama Chandra Varma to give Ac.0.20 cents of property belongs to them for maintenance of Goddess Durgamma Temple, the 2^^ respondent/defatocomplainant, further stated that since they objected for handing over 20 cents of property, on 20.10.2008 at about 10:00 a.m. while she and her brother-in-law Srirama Chandra Varma while watering to the coconut trees, A1 to A7 along with 60 members of Sangam persons came there, abused them in filthy language, A-2 dragged her by caught holding her tuft, A-1 pushed her with his hands by placing on her chest, and further stated that when Srirama Chandra Varma tiy to rescue her from their hands, A-4 and others plucked out 25 coconut saplings and thrown into river Godavari. Although she reported the matter before police, police^forwarded the charge sheet deleting Section 354 of IPC in the charge sheet.

¶27

Be that as it may, the 2^^ respondent herein filed a protest petition vide S.R.No.3575 of 2015 in Crime No.69 of 2009, on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur, for deleting the Section of law i.e.. Section 354 of l.P.C. from the charge sheet. The learned Magistrate by an^orderdated 28.07.2015, took cognizance against accused No.l under Section \354 of l.P.C and against accused Nos.2 to 7 under Section 354 r/ w ^4 of l.P.C.

¶28

¶29

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein/accused^No.5 and 6 filed the present criminal petition to quash^{thePRC.No.11of} 2015, on the ground that there are no specific allegations against petitioners herein/accused Nos.5 and 6, outraging the modesty of the respondent/defato-complainant, hence urged to quash^the entire charge sheet against the petitioners/accused^Nos.5and6.

¶30

As seen from the charge sheet, there is no specific allegation against accused Nos.5 and 6 with regard to committing^ofoffence punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C., outraging the^modestofthe 2"d respondent. The only allegation is against accused No.2, who pushed the 2"^ respondent by placing his hands on her^chest.

¶31

Whenever five or more persons commit a crime with a common object and intent, then each of them would be liable for commission of such offence, in terms of Sections 141 and 149 of l.P.C. Section 149 of I.P.C, it must be shown that the incriminating act was done to accomplish the common object of the^unlawful assembly. It must be within the knowledge of other^membersthat the offence is likely to be committed in prosecution^ofthecommon object, and if such requirement is satisfied, then they would be held liable Under Section 149 of l.P.C. When it is evaluated the material and documents on record, with a view to find^outfromits face value whether disclosing existence of ingredients of the alleged

¶32

¶33

offence or not it is decipher from the protest petition that the object of the accused is to obtain land, which belongs to complainant and her brother-in-law for the maintenance of goddess Durgamma temple and in the scramble accused-2 has pushed the 2"^ respondent/defacto-complainant putting his hands on^her chest. Therefore it cannot be said that all the accused having^common object or intention to outrage the modesty of the complainant.

¶34

Hence, the learned Magistrate has erroneously taken cognizance against accused Nos.5 and 6 for the offence punishable under Section 354 r/w 34 of l.P.C. Even to attract^Section 149 of l.P.C, there should be a common object or common intention.^From the protest petition, it is clear that the common object is only to receive the property, which is in dispute, for goddess Durgamma temple.

¶35

On entire reading of the charge sheet or the protest petition, there is no specific allegation against the petitioners/accused^Nos. 5 and 6. Therefore, Court below has erroneously taken cognizance against the accused Nos.5 and 6.

¶36

Hence, the Criminal Petition is allowed in-part and^Section 354 r/w 34 of l.P.C is hereby quashed against petitioners herein/accused Nos. 5 and 6 and the Court below is directed to prbceed with other offences against all the accused.

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶40

SD/- B CHITTI JOSEPH
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1. The Additional Judicial first Class Magistrate: Narasapur,^WestGodavari 2. One CC to Sri. K L N Swamy Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Puvvadi Venkateswarlu Advocate [OPUCJ 4. Two CC's to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati [OUT] S .Two CD Copies

SAM

sree

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/02/2024

ORDER

CRLP.No.209 of 2019

8 Cop I €5

D51-

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRL.P.

V.Ramprasad v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Ramprasad v. State of Ap

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

S.Venkatesh Alias Venkateash Vs State of Ap

P..N.Durga Prasad Vs State of Ap

Chirf Manger Vs State of Ap

Sujatha Boddu Vs State of Ap

K.Koteswara Rao Vs State of Ap

G.Veera Babu Vs State SHO