Dismissed

Kaligotla Suryanarayana Murthy at Babji v. Gollapalli Subramanyeswara Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Feb 2024CRLP/6071/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of proceedings. The Court held that the complainant filed a petition under Section 202 Cr.P.C as a protest against the police final report treating the matter as civil. The Court found no reason to allow the petition.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; proceedings in C.C.No.332/2019 remain active.

Kaligotla Suryanarayana Murthy at… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY i TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR '

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6071 OF 2019

¶4

Between:

¶5

Kaligotia Suryanarayana Murthy @ Babji, S/o Late Srirama Murthy, Aged about 65yrs, R/o Near Chinna Bazar, Bheemunipatnam^Townand Mandal, Visakhapatnam

¶6

Kaligotia Venkata Ramana Murthy, S/o Late Apparao, Aged about 62 yrs, R/o Near Chinna Bazar, Bheemunipatnam Town and Mandal, Visakhapatnam

¶7

Kaligotia Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o Late Apparao, Aged about 60 yrs, R/o Near Chinna Bazar, Bheemunipatnam Town and Mandal, Visakhapatnam

¶8

Kaligotia Venkata Bhanoji Rao, S/o Late Bhaskara Rao, Aged about 50 yrs, R/o D.No.45-67-14/1, Besides Gagana Vihar, Opp Prasanthi Villa, Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam

¶9

Kaligotia Srirama Chandra Murthy @ Sriramulu, S/o Late Bhaskara Rao, Aged about 45 yrs, R/o Near Chinna Bazar, Bheemunipatnam Town and Mandal, Visakhapatnam

¶10

Kaligotia Srinivas Rao, S/o Late Prabhakara Rao, Aged about 45 yrs, R/o Flat No.203, Gandhi Bhavan, Opp Shadikhana, Akkayapalem, Visakhapatnam

...Petitioners/

Accused Nos.1 to 6

AND

Gollapalli Subramanyeswara Rao, S/o Late Suryanarayana, Aged about 54yrs, Occ: Business, R/o D.No. 1-2-70, Akkireddipalem, Visakhapatnam.

¶15

...Respondent/ Defacto Complainant

¶16

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

¶17

...Respondent 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 quash the proceedings in C.C.No.332/2019 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District.

¶18

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶19

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 all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in C.C.No.332/2019^onthe file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing^{theMemorandum} of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and of^{theAdditional} Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6071 OF 2019

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The 1st respondent/complainant has filed a private complaint against the petitioners/accused herein on^the file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka. The learned Magistrate has referred the matter^under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C to the Gajuwaka Police. On receiving the complaint, the Gajuwaka police have registered the case in Crime No.275 of 2014, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120(B) of IPC and filed a final report, stating that the dispute is civil in^natureand the matter, which has to be decided by the competent civil^Court.

¶25

Aggrieved by the final report filed by the police, the 1st respondent/complainant has filed a complaint Under^Section 202 of Cr.P.C with same allegation as made in the earlier complaint. Now, the said complaint is assailed on the ground that when a private complaint is filed and the same^wasreferred to the police and in case police filed final report as civil in nature, the 1st respondent/complainant instead of filing a

¶26

¶27

protest as required under law filed a second complaint,^whichis not maintainable, and the trial Court instead of returning^the complaint has taken the complaint erroneously, hence urged to quash the proceedings.

¶28

Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, learned^counselfor the 1st respondent.

¶29

Learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the complaint has filed as protest petition and the note underneath of the complaint would indicates that a protest petition was filed and not the second complaint as alleged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and hence it is imperative and profitable to reproduce the same in this order: “The complainant is filed as protest petition in pursuance of the Refer charge sheet filed by Gajuwaka PS, SHO numbered as DDR.12506/2018 dated 19-12-2018 and this application is filed on account of the perfunct enquiry conducted by the Gajuwaka PS, SHO.”

¶30

Therefore, the Court has rightly took the cognizance against the protest petition and the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 2^^ complaint is not

¶31

)

¶32

¶33

maintainable is liable to be rejected, as the petition filed by the complainant under Section 202 Cr.P.C is a protest petition.

¶34

Therefore, this Court found no reason to allow the^Criminal Petition, on the ground that it is raised and argued, by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused.

¶35

Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶36

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

¶37

criminal petition shall stand closed.

¶38

SD/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

/SECTION OFFICER

The III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District.

¶43

One CC to Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.^at Amaravati[OUT]

¶44

Three CD Copies.

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/02/2024

ORDER

CRLP.No.6071 of 2019

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

Kaligotla Suryanarayana Murthy at Babji v. Gollapalli Subramanyeswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaligotla Suryanarayana Murthy at Babji v. Gollapalli Subramanyeswara Rao

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

V.Ramprasad Vs State of Ap

Sujatha Boddu Vs State of Ap

K.Koteswara Rao Vs State of Ap

a shanthi Vs State of Ap

Kollipara Krishna Kumar Vs State of Ap

S.Narasimha Reddy Vs State of Ap