Disposed¶35

Vikkurthi Kamala Swathi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Jul 2025CRLP/7140/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; CRL.PETN. 7140/2025; Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa; quashment refused; protest petition cognizance; Sections 324 r/w 34 IPC; Section 528 BNSS; Section 482 CrPC; accused deleted from charge sheet; statements of LWs-4 to 6; FIR and complainant statement; specific overt acts; reasoned order of JFCM Avanigadda; Crl.M.P.No.127 of 2024 in C.C.No.77 of 2025; dispensation of personal appearance; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Quashment refused; the presence of the petitioner/Accused No.2 before the Trial Court dispensed with unless her presence is specifically directed by the Trial Court; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed. ¶35

Vikkurthi Kamala Swathi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Bail and Remand | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings pending against the petitioner/Accused No.2 in Crl.M.P.No.127 of 2024 in C.C.No.77 of 2025 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda — where cognizance was taken on a protest petition under Sections 324 r/w 34 IPC after the Police had deleted her from the charge sheet — should be quashed. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

This is not a fit case for quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.2.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The basis for refusing quashment: a keen perusal of the Magistrate's order shows it is a reasoned order supported by cogent reasons, referring to the contents of the First Information Report and the statement of the complainant attributing specific overt acts against the petitioner.

¶34

Key takeaways

Although the statements of LWs-4 to 6 contain no reference to the petitioner and were recorded by the Police without being shaped into evidence before the Court, there remains evidence against the petitioner through the FIR and complainant's statement, so their deletion from the charge sheet does not render cognizance on the protest petition unfit for continuation.ratio¶34
While declining quashment, the Court dispensed with the personal appearance of the petitioner/Accused No.2 before the Trial Court unless her presence is specifically directed by the Trial Court.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 528 BNSS by Accused No.2 seeking quashment of proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.127 of 2024 in C.C.No.77 of 2025 (JFCM, Avanigadda). After investigation the Police charge sheet had named only Accused No.1, deleting the petitioner, on the statements of LWs-4 to 6; the Magistrate nevertheless took cognizance under Sections 324 r/w 34 IPC on a protest petition. Holding that the LWs-4 to 6 statements (police-recorded, not shaped into court evidence) contained no reference to the petitioner but that the Magistrate's order was reasoned and rested on the FIR and the complainant's statement attributing specific overt acts to the petitioner, Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa (AP High Court, Amaravati, 14.07.2025) declined quashment but dispensed with the petitioner's personal appearance before the Trial Court unless specifically directed; the petition was disposed of.

¶1

¶2

APHC010260022025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3396]

¶6

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7140/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

VIKKURTHI KAMALA SWATHI, W/O. NAGA SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. AVANIGADDA VILLAGE MANDAL, WITHIN THE HITS OF AVANIGADDA POLICE STATION.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶14

VIKKURTHI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. NAGAMALLESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. AVANIGADDA VILLAGE MANDAL, WITHIN THE HITS OF AVANIGADDA POLICE STATION

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶16

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to QUASH the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.127 of 2024 in C.C.No.77 of 2025 on the file of Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate at Avanigadda and to pass

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to STAY all further proceedings including

¶19

¶20

the personal appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in Crl.M.P.No.127 of 2024 in C.C.No.77 of 2025 on the file of Honble Judicial First Class Magistrate at Avanigadda, pending disposal of main criminal petition and to pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶22

1.KALLA TULASI DURGAMBA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶24

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶25

¶26

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7140 /2025

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

The instant petition under Section 528 of BNSS., has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.2, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against her in Crl.M.P.No.127 of 2024 in C.C.No.77 of 2025 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Avanigadda

¶29

Heard Ms. K. Tulasi Durgamba, learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.2 and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after due investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against the Accused No.1 deleting the Accused No.2, basing on the statements of LWs-4 to 6 who are alleged to have witnessed the incident. Learned counsel would further submit that on protest petition, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 324 r/w 34 of IPC against the petitioner herein also. Learned counsel would further submit that it is a clear case of abuse of process of law. Learned counsel finally prays to allow the petition.

¶31

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. As such the learned Magistrate has rightly has taken cognizance on the protest petition for the offence under Section 324

¶32

¶33

r/w 34 of IPC. There are no grounds to interfere in the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

¶34

Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, learned counsel for the petitioner rightly argued that there is no reference about the name of the petitioner in the statements of LWs-4 to 6. The fact remains that these are the statements which have been recorded by the Police but was not shaped into form of evidence before the Court. Learned Magistrate having referred that the statements of the LWs-4 to 6 ruled out the petitioner herein, still there is evidence against the petitioner whose name has been deleted by the Police. A keen perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate would show that the order is a reasoned order supported by the cogent reasons referring to the contents of the First Information Report and statement of the complainant by attributing specific overt acts against the petitioner herein. In that view, this is not a fit case for quashment. However, the presence of the petitioner/Accused No.2 before the Trial Court is dispensed with unless her presence is specifically directed by the Trial Court.

¶35

6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶36

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶37

closed.

¶38

_________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶39

Date: 14.07.2025 UPS

¶40

¶41