Dismissed

Boppa Chetan v. K.Rajagopalarao

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Feb 2024CRLP/392/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused challenging an order allowing legal heirs to continue prosecution under Section 302 Cr.P.C. after the original complainant died. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held the application maintainable and the challenge to be untenable.

What did the court decide?

Grants liberty to respondent to continue proceedings; criminal petition dismissed.

Boppa Chetan Vs K.Rajagopalarao — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 392 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

Boppa Chetan, Kaleswara Rao Road, Central Bank of India Buildings Nakkal Road, Vijayawada.

¶9

...Petitioner/Respondent/Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

K.Rajagopalarao, S/o Kate Ravindrarao, Hindu, Aged about 56 years, Occ;Software Employee, D.No.29-9-60/1, Govindarajulunaidu Street Surya Rao Peta Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶12

Respondent/Petitioner

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Amaravathi, for the State of A.P.

¶14

...2"*^ Respondent/State/Respondent

¶15

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 call for records in connection with the order dated 24-12-2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1923 of 2018 in C.C.No.330 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶16

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶17

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 in CC.No.330 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. G.L. Nageswar Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri. P. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

¶19

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶20

[3330 ]

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶22

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

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶25

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 392 OF 2019

¶26

Between:

¶27

BOPPA CHETAN, Kaleswara Rao Road, Central Bank of^INdia Buildings, Nakkal Road, Vijayawada.

¶28

... PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶29

AND

¶30

K.RAJAGOPALARAO, Occ. Software Employee, D.No.29-9-60/1, govindarajulunaidu Street Suiya Rao peta, Vijayawada,^Krishna Dist.

¶31

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Amaravathi,^forthe State of A.P.

¶32

.. .RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANTS

¶33

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court

¶34

LA. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶35

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^ofallfurther proceedings in CC.No.330/2012 on the file of the Honourable III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition and to pass.

¶36

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G L NAGESWAR RAO ,Advocate for the^Petitioner

¶37

¶38

and the Public Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent No. and of Sri_Advocate for the Respondent No.

¶39

The Court made the following;

¶40

The present criminal petition is filed seeking to call^forthe records and quash the order dated 24.12.2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.l923 of 2018 in C.C.No.330 of 2012 on the file of learned 111 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Wherein, the Court allowed the petition filed by the 1st respondent under Section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”).

¶41

As seen from the facts of the case, it is clear that the l^t respondent’s father filed a private complaint before the Court, and he was examined as P.W.l besides examining P.W.2.^The accused himself was examined as D.W.l under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. When the matter is posted for cross-examination, the complainant died on 11.01.2015, due to cardiac disease. Hence, the Court posted the matter for taking steps to implead the legal heirs of the complainant.

¶42

Subsequently, the l^t respondent filed a Crl.M.P.No.5727 of 2015 under Section 256 of Cr.P.C seeking to permit him to continue the proceedings. The said petition was allowed by the

¶43

¶44

¶45

learned Magistrate by an order dated 27.09.2017. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/accused preferred Crl.P.No.9046^of 2018 before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. The High Court allowed the said petition and set aside the order dated 27.09.2017 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5727 of 2017 and giving liberty to the 1®'^ respondent to file an appropriate application under Section 302 of Cr.P.C., if so desires.

¶46

Thereafter, the Ht respondent filed Crl.M.P.No. 1923 of 2018 in C.C.No.330 of 2012, under Section 302 of Cr.P.C. The said petition was allowed by an order dated 24.12.2018. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein preferred the present criminal petition seeking to set aside the^orderdated 24.12.2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 1923 of 2018 on the ground that the present petition was filed at a belated stage.

¶47

Per contra learned counsel for the respondent vehemently objected and would contend that the petition^under Section 302 is maintainable at any time and the dismissal of complaint in Crl.P.No.9046 of 2018 is not relevant for disposal of this criminal petition and the said order also alludes that liberty was granted to the Ht respondent to file appropriate application, before the learned Magistrate under the relevant form of law and

¶48

¶49

the order in Crl.P.No.9046 of 2018 is no more impediment^tofile this application and he also relied on the judgment of the HonTDle Apex Court in Chand Devi Daga and others v. Manju

¶50

K.Humatani and others^ at paragraph No. 14 held as^follows:

¶51

Two-Judge Bench in Jimmy Jahangir Madan Vs. Bolly Caiyappa Hindley (dead) By Lrs.^, referring to Ashiuin Nanubhai Vyas v. State of Maharashtra held that heirs of complainant can continue the prosecution. Following was held in para 5: The question as to whether the heirs of the complainant can be allowed to file an application under Section 302 of the Code to continue the prosecution is no longer res Integra as the same has been concluded by a decision of this Court in the case of Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas v. State^of Maharashtra in which case the Court was dealing with a case under Section 495 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which IS corresponding to Section 302 of the Code. In that case, it was laid down that upon the death of the complainant, under the provisions of Section 495 of the said Code, mother of the complainant could be allowed to continue the prosecution. It was further laid down that she could make the application either herself or through a pleader. Undisputedly, in the present case, the heirs themselves have not filed the applications to continue the prosecution, rather the same have been filed by their power-of-attorney holders....”

¶52

As seen from the judgment it is clear that, the heirs^ofthe complainant can be allowed to file a petition under^Section302 of Cr.P.C., to continue the prosecution and the issue is no longer

¶53

res integra.

¶54

' (2018) 1 see 71 h2004) 12 see 509

¶55

¶56

In view of the judgment of the Hon hie Apex Court, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are untenable and they are rejected. An application under^Section 302 is maintainable for coming on record, as the heirs of the complainant.

¶57