Quashed

Konidela Siva Shankar Vara Prasad , Chiranjeevi, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC15 Sept 2009CRLP/2579/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh quashed criminal proceedings as the charge sheet conflicted with Section 195(1)(a) CrPC regarding Section 188 IPC, failed to disclose an unlawful assembly of five or more persons for Sections 143/149 IPC, and did not substantiate wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC. Relief was granted via order against collective proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C. No.353 of 2009 were quashed as the charge sheet was not in accordance with law.

Konidela Siva Shankar Vara Prasad , Chiranjeevi, Vs The… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 2579 of 2009

¶5

Between:

¶6

Konidela Siva Shankar Vara Prasad @ Chiranjeevi

¶7

. .Petitioner

¶8

And

¶9

The State of A.P., rep. By Public Prosecutor and another

¶10

.. Respondent

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD

¶12

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2579 of 2009

¶13

ORDER :

¶14

Heard Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for both the respondents.

¶15

2) The petitioner is facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 188 and 149 of Indian Penal Code for alleged violation of the orders issued by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kurnool in C.No.184/SDPO-K/2009, dated 06.02.2009 and the consequential obstruction to the traffic. However, the charge sheet/complaint was filed into Court by the Sub Inspector of Police for the alleged violation of the order promulgated by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, which is in violation of Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires that in respect of any offence punishable under Section 188 of

¶16

Indian Penal Code, no Court shall take cognizance except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. The complaint by the Sub Inspector of Police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code could not have been therefore taken cognizance of by the trial Court against the petitioner or even against the other three accused who are not parties to this criminal petition.

¶17

3) Concerning the alleged offences under Sections 143 and 149 of Indian Penal Code, the very definition of an unlawful assembly under Section 141 of Indian Penal Code requires the assembly to be of 5 or more persons and therefore any prosecution in respect of offences punishable under Sections 143 and 149 of Indian Penal Code could not have been against only the 4 accused and the complaint/charge sheet does not disclose positively that any others are involved in the alleged offences.

¶18

4) The allegation about the committal of an offence under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code in the charge sheet is too omnibus and general in nature and the memorandum of evidence attached to the charge sheet only mentions about some inconvenience caused to the public by the road show, but not about the road show resulting in the wrongful restraint of any person, punishable under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code.

¶19

5) Therefore, as the complaint/charge sheet is not in accordance with law and for the other reasons, the Criminal Petition should succeed and though the accused 2 to 4 are not before the Court in this Criminal Petition, as the complaint/charge sheet is held to be in not in accordance with law, the proceedings in the case should be quashed as a whole.

¶20

6) Therefore, the further proceedings in C.C. No.353 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly.

¶21

G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J

¶22

September 15, 2009 KSH

Konidela Siva Shankar Vara Prasad , Chiranjeevi, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Konidela Siva Shankar Vara Prasad , Chiranjeevi, v. The State of A.P.

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

M/s Sree Lakshmi Sai Agro Chemicals, Vs Swal Corporation Ltd.

Smt. C.Bhagya Lakshmi, Vs The Inspector

Smt. Sajida Begum , Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Pawan Kalyan, Vs The State

P.Ravi Chandra, Vs State of A.P.

Chidurala Mallikarjuna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh