The High Court dismissed a Criminal Petition filed to quash an FIR and investigation order because the petitioners failed to appear and had no representation, indicating a lack of interest to prosecute the matter.
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
THURSDAY. THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6653 OF 2018
Between:
...Petitioners/Accused
AND
1®* Respondent/Complainant
...2" Respondent/Informant
. * / that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Docket Order Dt.11-09-2012 passed by the Special court for ACB Cases. Visakhapatnam referring the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent i.e.. Anti Corruption Bureau Visakhapatnam U/s 156/(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and the consequently Quash the FIR No.8 of 2012 of Anti Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam.
u
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2018
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 Docket Order Dt. 11-09-2012 passed by the Special Court for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam referring the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent i.e.. Anti Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation and to quash the consequential FIR No. 8 of 2012 of Anti Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ponavolu Sudhakara Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri. Udaya Bhaskara Rao, (SC for ACB Special Public Prosecutor) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri DR. P. B. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 ^
The Court made the following Order:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6653 OF 2018
ORDER;
Despite the matter being posted under the caption ‘For Dismissal’, there is no representation for the petitioners.
Therefore, it evinces that the petitioners have nointerestto prosecute the case. Hence, the present Criminal Petition is
dismissed for non-prosecution.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendinginthis
Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
SDI- A VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
To,
S N OFFICER
- The Special Court for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
- One CC to Sri. Ponavolu Sudhakara Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
- Two CCs to the Udaya Bhaskara Rao (SC for ACB SPL PP) [OPUCl
- Three CD Copies. Gkk sree A!)(>gioeeo
•*
HIGH COURT
DATED:11/01/2024
ORDER
CRLP.No.6653 of 2018
DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION FOR NON-PROSECUTION
/tin
r.
m 5
' Si
"%2 N#
Venkata Ramana Murthy and others
State of Andhra Pradesh
Adah Adi Murthy
Tarlada Rajasekhara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
