Quashed

Topan Kumar Ghos, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC26 Jul 2010CRLP/3487/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Article 226, this Court quashed proceedings in C.C.No.485 of 2006 against the petitioner, as no useful purpose would be served given the acquittal of a co-accused standing on the same footing in identical offences.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.485 of 2006 quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

Topan Kumar Ghos, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3487 OF 2008

Between:

Topan Kumar Ghos

… PETITIONER

The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶10

… RESPONDENT

¶11

This Court made the following:

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶13

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3487 OF 2008

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

1. The petitioner/A4 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 420 and 407/34 I.P.C. along with seven others. Originally, the case was registered as C.C.No.301 of 1999 on the file

¶16

of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Srikakulam. Case against A2 to A4 and A7 was separated and was re-numbered as C.C.No.485 of 2006 in the lower Court; and trial of the case against A1, A5, A6 and A8 was taken up by the lower Court. After trial, the lower Court acquitted A1, A5, A6 and A8 holding that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner/A4 also stands on the same footing as that of A8 in these offences. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that no purpose would be served even if trial of the case is allowed to go on against the petitioner, because the lower Court on similar circumstances and similar evidence acquitted A8, who is standing on the same footing as that of A4. This Court is of the opinion that there is substance in the contention of the petitioner/A4 and that no purpose would be served even if trial against A4, who was apprehended subsequently, is allowed to go on.

¶17

2. Hence, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.485 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Srikakulam, insofar as petitioner/A4 is concerned.

¶18

___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

¶19

July 26, 2010 MD

¶20

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3487 OF 2008

¶22

July 26, 2010

Topan Kumar Ghos, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Topan Kumar Ghos, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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.Viswamanatha Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Koneti Viswanatham, Vs Chenji Nagamma , Revathi

K.Venkata Satyanarayana, Vs Smt. K.v.Lakshmi Kameswari

Nallaboina Shobhana Chalam, Vs Smt. N. Durga Bhavani

R.K. Steels, Vs J. Trinadha Rao

S.Kondal Rao, Vs The Station House Officer, Sanga Reddy P.S., Medak Dist,.