Allowed

Sri Batteti Ganesh Babu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Sept 2024CRLP/4640/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 528 BNSS by holding that the Magistrate's order dated 28.03.2018 was unsustainable for lack of application of mind, directing it to be set aside and passed afresh.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.03.2018 of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is set aside with a direction to pass an order afresh as per law.

Sri Batteti Ganesh Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

MONDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4640 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri Batteti Ganesh Babu, S/o (Late) Ramarao, Aged 60 yrs, Occ Advocate R/at D.No.4558-14,2nd Floor Narasimhanagar, Saligrampuram Visakhapatnam

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED-2

¶10

AND

¶11

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court at Amaravathi.

¶12

N. Srinivasa Rao, Sub Inspector of Police III Town Police Station Visakhapatnam City.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS (482 of CRPC) praying^thatin the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court May be Pleased to Quash the Impugned Proceedings in C.C.No.567/2018 on the file of 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Visakhapatnam as against the Petitioner/2nd Accused.

¶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 Stay of all the further proceedings in the Impugned C.C.No.567/2018 on the file of 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Visakhapatnam as against the Petitioner/2nd Accused.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the^Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R SIVA SAI SWARUP.Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1

¶17

The Court made the following ORDER :

¶18

APHC010287792024

¶19

SMB

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶21

[3368]

¶22

MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4640/2024

¶25

Between:

¶26

Sri Batteti Ganesh Babu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶27

AND

¶28

The State Of Andhra

¶29

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

¶30

Pradesh and Others

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶32

1.RSIVASAI SWARUP

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶34

The Court made the following:

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A2,^Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (old^Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.567 of 2018, on the file of the^learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, ( herein after referred to as ‘learned Magistrate’) registered for the offences punishable^underSection

¶37

¶38

353 read with 34 IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the ‘M.V.Act’).

¶39

Heard Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1/State.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that^the order, dated 28.03.2018 of the learned Magistrate for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 353 read with 34 IPC and Section 185 of the M.V.Act does not discloses the application of mind to the material placed on record for taking cognizance and the order of the learned Magistrate is not sustainable in lav^ in the light of the judgment of^{theHon’bleApex} Court in Lalan Kumar Singh and others vs. State of Maharastra .

¶41

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and would submit that there are no grounds to interfere^withthe order of the learned Magistrate.

¶42

In the light of the above rival contentions, the point for consideration is;

¶43

‘Whether the order, dated 28.03.2018 of the learned Magistrate is sustainable in law?

¶44

2022 see Online Sc 1383

¶45

¶46

¶47

POINT.

¶48

Undisputedly, the police laid charge sheet before the for the under Section 353 read with 34 IPC learned Magistrate and Section 185 of the M.V.Act against the petitioner herein/A2 and another accused arraying them as A1 and A2 respectively. The impugned order, dated 28.03.2028 of the learned^Magistrate is as follows;

¶49

Complaint is filed for the offence u/Sec.353 r/w Sec.34 of IPC Sec.185 of MV Act against the accused.

¶50

Accused on bail.

¶51

Charge sheet is verified and found correct. Submitted,

¶52

Superintendent.

¶53

Taken on file for the offence punishable u/Sec.353 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, Sec.185 of MV Act

¶54

against the accused.

¶55

Issue notice to the accused.

¶56

Call on 25.09.2018.”

¶57

A perusal of the said order, dated 28.03.2018 would make it clear that the learned Magistrate did not apply^{mindandpassed} routine order incorporating the provisions of law as^mentionedin accordance with the the charge sheet. Therefore, it is not in

¶58

¶59

directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalan Kumar Singh^and

¶60

others vs. State of Maharastra.

¶61

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion^that the order, dated 28.03.2018 of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam^ needs to be set aside with a direction.

¶62

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of^with a direction setting aside the impugned order, 28.03.2018 of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam^with a direction to the learned Magistrate^topass order afresh as per the law, in view of the judgment^{oftheHon’ble} Apex Court in Lalan Kumar Singh and others vs. State^of Maharastra, referred above.

¶63

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any^ pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶64

SD/- P.VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT^ REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEdtrON OFFICER

¶65

To,

¶66

The I®* Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakapatnam.

¶67

One CC to SRI. R SIVA SAI SWARUP Advocate [OPUC]

¶68

TwoCCstothe PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT]

¶69

THREE CD COPIES

TAC

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/09/2024

ORDER

CRLP.No.4640 of 2024

"a
0 3 OCT 20?^* m)i
Co/y
t
. Current Section . ^

¶76

DISPOSING THE CRLP PETITION

Sri Batteti Ganesh Babu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Batteti Ganesh Babu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Konakanchi Vasantha Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Ratna Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kakula Sreedhar Rao Vs the State of Ap

Sai Concrete Pavers Private Limited, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

B Vijayalakshmi Vs the State of Ap

Smt G. Saradamma , Vs State of Andhra Pradesh