Dismissed

Chintala Srinivasa Rao v. The State of A.P

Telangana HC20 Dec 2011CRLP/2353/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The petitioner argued that the appellate court convicted the accused only of minor offences (Sections 148 and 448 I.P.C.) in a related trial, thereby indicating no case existed against the petitioner. The court held that since no trial was conducted against the petitioner, such paragraphs coul

What did the court decide?

None; the petition for quashing of proceedings in P.R.C. No. 15 of 2005 was dismissed.

Chintala Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of A.P — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2353 of 2009 Dated 20-12-2011

¶2

Between:

¶3

Chintala Srinivasa Rao and others.

¶4

…Petitioners.

¶5

And:

¶6

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad.

¶7

…Respondents.

¶8

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2353 of 2009 ORDER:

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶10

Petitioner herein is A.22 in the original P.R.C. No.40 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the First Additional Munsif Magistrate, Gurazala. It is seen that the case against him and A.10 was separated by the committal court and it was numbered as P.R.C.No.15 of 2005. The present petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in the said P.R.C.No.15 of 2005 against these petitioners.

¶11

Before I set out the plea of the petitioner, it should be noted that P.R.C.No.40 of 2004 referred to supra, was committed to the court of Sessions, Guntur and the offences alleged in the said case are those punishable under Sections 147, 148, 448, 436 and 379 I.P.C. read with 149 I.P.C. After committal, the case was numbered as S.C.No.369 of 2005 and was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gurazala. The Assistant Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated 17-2-2006 convicted the accused therein for the offences under Sections 148, 448 read with 149 I.P.C. and under Section

¶12

435 read with 149 I.P.C. and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment and also fine with default clause of sentences for nonpayment of fines while it acquitted the accused therein for the other offences including the offence under Section 436 I.P.C.

¶13

Questioning the above judgment in S.C.No.369 of 2005, accused therein filed Crl.A.No.64 of 2006 on the file of the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Guntur at Narasaraopet. That Criminal Appeal was disposed of by the appellate court by its judgment dated 3-6-2008. The appellate Court convicted the said accused for the offences under Sections 148 I.P.C. and Section 448 I.P.C. read with 149 I.P.C. and imposed sentences which are mentioned in its judgment and acquitted the accused of the other offences including one under Section 435 I.P.C.

¶14

The plea of the petitioner is that since the appellate court recorded convictions only for the offences under Sections 148 and 448 read with 149 I.P.C. which can be said to be minor offences, no case can be said to have been made out against the petitioner and therefore, the P.R.C. registered against him should be quashed. There is no force in this contention.

¶15

It may be noted that no trial took place against this petitioner. Whatever evidence that was recorded in the trial Court was recorded only against the other accused in respect of whom the aforesaid Sessions Case went on. Thus, it cannot be said that the witnesses who were examined would not speak anything against this petitioner or even if they speak, some lesser offences may be made out as held by appellate court. Even otherwise, it may be noted that the appellate court ultimately found guilty and convicted the other accused for the aforesaid offences under Sections 148 and 448 read with 149 I.P.C. It cannot, therefore, be said that no case is made out against this petitioner.

¶16

In the above circumstances, it follows that this Criminal Petition has to fail and it is accordingly, dismissed. It is always open for the petitioner to raise his objections, if any, in the committal court or trial court.

¶17

_____________________ Justice N.RAVI SHANKAR Dated 20-12-2011. Dvs

¶18

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2353 of 2009 Dated 20-12-2011

Chintala Srinivasa Rao v. The State of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintala Srinivasa Rao 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

Venigalla Sudhakara Rao, Vs Venigalla Siva Parvathi , Parvathi

Ch.Srisaila Babu,(A-1) Vs The Senior Intelligence Officer

Vadlamudi Sankaraiah, (A-7) Vs State of A.P.

R. Basavaiah Vs State of A.P. through Acb

M.Pradeep Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.

Sk. Shabirpasha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh