Three accused sought quashing of C.C. No.80 of 2015 (assault and threats over Rs.6 crore compromise demand amid matrimonial disputes). Court found allegations specific and declined to quash; trial to proceed but accused's physical presence dispensed with except when required.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
✓
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2525 and 1374 OF 2016
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2525 OF 2016
Between:
AND
...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT
I.A. No.1 OF 2016 fCRLPMP. No.2574 OF 20161
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 Stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in connection with the Crime in CC No.80/2015 on the file of the III Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittoor.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1374 OF 2016
Between:
B. Sangameswara Babu, S/o. B. Sivanandam, Aged about52Years,Occ: Contractor, Residing at 305, Floor, Sri Sai Pooja Residency,J.P.Nagar, 1®* Stage, 13*^ Cross, Saraki, Bangalore, KarnatakaState.
...Petitioner/Accused No.3
AND
...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT
Petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitions, the High Court may be pleased to quash the order dt.31.01.2015 passedinCC.No.80of2015onthe file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,ChittoorDistrict.
I.A. No.1 OF 2016 (CRLPMP. No.1293 OF 2016)
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 stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in connection with the Crime in CC No.80/2015 on the file of the III Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittoor.
These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusingtheMemorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petitions and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Advocate for the Petitioners andthePublicProsecutoron behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of M/s. Indus Law Firm for the Respondent No.2
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION. Nos.2525 and 1374 OF 2016
COMMON ORDER;
As these two Criminal Petitions arise out of the same Calendar Case, they are being disposed of by way ofthis Common Order.
- Crl.P.No.2525 of 2016 is filed by Accused Nos.l and 2; whereas Crl.P.No.l374 of 2016 is filed by Accused No.3, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.80 of 2015on the file of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittoor.
- Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri N.V. Sumanth, learned counsel for the 2^^^ respondent/complainant and Sri. Nithileswar Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutorfor the 1st respondent.
- Case of the prosecution is as follows;-
The marriage of the son of the 2nd respondent was performed with the daughter of 1st petitioner on 05.12.2011 at Bangalore. After marriage, the couplehad
2
lead happy marital life for some time. Thereafter, some disputes cropped up between them. Subsequently, on 06.06.2013 the daughter of the 1St petitioner lodged a report at Bhanssankari Police Station, Bangalore City, under Section 498-A and Section 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, and the said case is pending. Subsequently, she also filed two other Criminal Cases arising out of Domestic Violence Act. In retaliation,sonof the 2nd respondent has also filed a petition for divorce and the same is also pending. While so, it is alleged thatthe 1 St petitioner demanded an amount of Rs. 6 Crores for compromising the above cases for which, the 2nd respondent did not agree to pay said amount. While SO, on 10.08.2014 at about 07.00 P.M., the 2nd respondentcame to his Village i.e., Paipalle, Chittoor Town, in his Car. When he stopped his Car in front of his house. Accused Nos.l to 3 along with some others surrounded him and restrained him and demanded him to pay 6 Crores for effecting the compromise in the above cases and threatened him at the point of Pistol. Thereafter,Accused Nos.l to 3 said to have beat the 2nd respondent on his
3
chest, head and hands and thereby caused injuries, On approaching the 2nd respondent, seeing the persons in their Car. On the Accused Nos.l to 3 left the scene same day, the 2nd respondent gave a report at Penumur Police Station, and the Police registered a case in Crime No.67 of 2014, under Sections 341, 506 IPC, read with 34 IPC. After completion of investigation, the police referred Thereafter, the 2nd a Final Report”. the case by filing and the learned Protest Petition re spondent filed a statement took after recording his sworn Magistrate of the case against all the three petitioners. cognizance read with 34 IPC and under Section 323 and 506 numbered the case as C.C.No.80 of 2015. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that the 2nd respondent resorted to lodge the settle his scores in the present false complaint only to Criminal Cases filed by the daughter of the petitioner. the date of incident i.e., on He further contends that on 10.08.2014, the petitioners are conspicuously present in visited the Village of the 2nd Bangalore and they never and thereby he pleaded “alibi”. As such, he respondent
4
requests this Court to quash the proceedings as they are nothing but abuse of the process of law.
- On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent opposed the application contending inter alia that there are specific allegations made against all the three Accused. They further contended that so far as “alibi” is concerned, the same cannot be looked into under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
- This Court perused the entire material on record.
- As seen from the record, at Paragraph No.6 of the complaint, the allegations are that Accused Nos.l to 3 surrounded the 2nd respondent and threatened him atthe point of Pistol saying that he has to pay an amountofRs.6 Crores for settling the above cases. It is further alleged that Accused Nos.l to 3 said to have beat the 2nd respondent on his chest, head and hands. In view ofthe allegations made at Paragraph No.6 of the complaint,this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings as truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the
5
allegations can only be looked into during the course of trial.
- As the matter relates to matrimonial issue, this Court is inclined to dispense with the presence of the petitioners during the course of trial. 1-6. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are disposedof directing the learned Magistrate to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. However, the learned Magistrate iIS directed not to insist the presence of the petitioners during the course of trial except on the dates where their presence is required.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
SD/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
ECTION OFFICER
To, 1. The III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,ChittoorDistrict. 2. One CC to Sri. Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to M/s. Indus Law Firm, [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies.
vna
HIGH COURT DATED:29/01/2024
ORDER
CRLP.No.2525 & 1374 of 2016
DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION
1 Co^'y (\U
2 issues framed by the court
Should proceedings in C.C. No.80 of 2015 under Sections 323, 506 and 34 IPC be quashed as abuse of process despite specific allegations against the accused?
Whether the petitioners' presence can be dispensed with during trial given the matrimonial context?
5 provisions across 4 enactments
I. V. Ramana Reddy
I. V. Maurya
B. Sangameswara Babu
The State of Andhra Pradesh
R. Ramamoorthy Reddy
K. Suresh Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
