Accused sought quashing of a criminal case arising from an assault on a police constable over non-payment of chit amount. Holding the allegations raised disputed questions of fact unsuitable for quashing, the High Court declined to conduct a roving inquiry and dismissed the petition.
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 :::: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT o
the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDD^^f^ CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 860 DF 2024
Between:
R/O. H. No. 52-1-22/B, Kalapala Vari Street, Gunadala, Vijayawada,
Krishna District
R/o. H. No. 52-1-22/B, Kalapala Vari Street, Gunadala, Vijayawada' Krishna District
No. 52-1-22/B, Kalapala Vari Street, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna
District
...petitioner/accused No.1 to 3
R/o. Bhagath Singh Nagar, 1st Lane Yanamalakuduru Village,
Vijayawada City, Krishna District.
...RESPONDENTS
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 C.C No. 2414 of 2021 on the
/
file of the 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada Krishna District. ^
/
I.A. NO: 2 OF 2024
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 all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in C.C No. 2414 of 2021 on the file of the 1 St Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District pending disposal of the Criminal Petition before this Hon’ble court. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusingtheMemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G. M. SWAMULU, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2.
The Court made the following;
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 860 OF 2024
Between:
... Petitioner(s)/Accused(s) Devarapalli Kishore Kumar & others AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh & Respondent(s)/Complainant(s) Other
The Court made the following Order:
2
(15) months and month for a period of fifteen Rs.5,000/- per Rs.50,000/Rs.68,000/-. At gave finally, auctioned the chit for in two .18,000/- would be given that remaining Rs and stated pretext or the other. the matter on one . But, A1 dragged on days 2nd respondent/de facto about 8.00 AM On 04.02.2018, at through Harijanawada to his house complainant was proceeding front of his house on the at about 8.15 PM in road, he noticed A1 NO.AP16 CE bearing registration said road. He stopped the bike that A1 started abusing A1 about the same, on 3772 and asked as to why he should give amount and him in vulgar language damaged his elbow and also his right beat with stone on ^ A2 and A3, who are . At that time motorcycle headlight dome 2nd respondent/de facto together caught brother of A1 and legs the hands him with and beat complainant \A/ith stone and all had broken his cell phone indiscriminately. A1 , but due to the adjacent drainage the accused threw him into the accused he escaped. All of neighbours intervention his end. Basing to see with dire consequences threatened him No.69 of 2018 a case in Crime on the report of 2nd respondent
3
of Machavaram PS was registered. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there are variations in the recitals mentioned in Section 161 CrPC and the charge sheet. The recitals in Section 161 CrPC statement are about cheating, whereas, the said aspect has been absent in the charge sheet. According to the learned counsel, the entire story of the prosecution is concocted version and hence, the Criminal Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that he has taken out notices to the respondent No.2. Thoughthe notice is served on the respondent No.2, none appeared on behalf of them.
- Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there is a dispute questioningfacts and the same has to be decided during the course of trial.
- Perused the record. 7. Admittedly, 2"^^ respondent is working as Police Constable in III Traffic P.S. Accused No.1 who is a Home Guard, worked as
4
Rakshak Driver was running chits. 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant joined the chit and paid Rs.5,000/- permonthfora period of fifteen (15) months and finally, auctioned the chit for Rs.68,000/-. A1 gave Rs.50,000/- and stated that remaining Rs.18,000/- would be given in two days but failed tokeephis promise and dodged the matter under one pretext or the other, 04.02.2018, at about 8.00 AM,' ^nd respondent/de facto complainant was proceeding to his house through Harijanawada road he noticed A1 at about 8.15 PM in front of his houseonthe said road. He stopped the bike bearing{ registrationN0.API6CE 3772 and asked A1 about the same, on that A1 startedabusing him in vulgar language as to why he should give amountand beat with stone on his right elbow and also damaged his motorcycle headlight dome. At that time, A2 and A3,whoare brother of A1 together caught 2nd respondent/de facto him with the hands and legs complainant and beat indiscriminately. A1 had broken his cell phone withstoneandall the accused threw him into the adjacent drainage, butdue to intervention of neighbors, he escaped.
5
- A perusal of the material on record goes to show that there is a dispute between the accused and the defacto complainant with regard to the non-payment of partial chit amount i.e. Rs. 18,000/-. For the past few months, accused was dodging the matter under one pretext or the other. On 04-02-2018, when the defacto complainant questioned fofthe payment, accused are alleged to have beat the defacto complainant with the stone and his cell phone has been broken with stone. These are all disputed questions of fact which have to be decided at the time of trial. It cannot be said at this stage that no such incident has taken place. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to conduct a roving inquiry into the disputed questions of fact. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
\
SD/-K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
District.
w-i
/
nm
HIGH COURT DATED:20/03/2024
ORDER
CRLP.No.860 of 2024
a: o<br>o 19 SEP 20?^ ^,,mti
5^ . Current Section . '.y
DISMISING THIS CRLP
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the proceedings in C.C. No. 2414 of 2021 should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC given alleged discrepancies between the Section 161 CrPC statement and the charge-sheet.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Devarapalli Kishore Kumar
Devarapalli Ravi Kumar
Devarapalli Nani
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Peram Rambabu
K. Sreenivasa Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
