Dismissed

Betappa v. The State of Andhra pradesh

Telangana HC20 Jul 2011CRLP/5983/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court, in Criminal Petition No.5983 of 2011, rejected an application to quash proceedings in a pending Sessions trial. The petitioners challenged FIRs and charge sheets alleging murder and secreting evidence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, finding specific allegations sufficient to sustain the case.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition seeking quashing of further proceedings in S.C.No.158 of 2011 was dismissed.

Betappa Vs The State of Andhra pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PEITION No.5983 OF 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of further proceedings in S.C.No.158 of 2011 on the file of learned VIII Additional District sand Sessions Judge, Chittoor, against the petitioners herein -A2 & 3.

¶4

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1^st respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶5

3. On a complaint given by the 2^nd respondent herein, police registered First Information Report in Cr.No.90 of 2010 against the petitioners-A2 and A3 and another for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. After due investigation, police filed charge sheet, which was taken cognizance in P.R.C.No.27 of 2010 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kuppam. Later, the accused were committed to the Sessions Court, wherein trial is pending in S.C.No.158 of 2011.

¶6

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners-A2 and A3 would submit that no specific allegations are made against the petitioners. The said contention is untenable. 5. A perusal of the charge sheet would disclose that it is specifically alleged that at the time of the alleged occurrence, A1 beat the deceased with a spade with an intention to kill her and the deceased fell down and the 1^st petitioner-A2, who was at nearby fields, went to A1 and pressed the neck of the deceased, while A1 caught her

¶7

feet and as result she died. Thus, specific allegation is made in the charge sheet and specific overt act is also attributed against A2 in the commission of the offence. It is further alleged that A1 and A2 informed A3 about the killing of the deceased for which A3 praised them and later, A1 to A3 dug a pit near the paddy fields and buried the dead body and concealed the evidence of murder. Thus specific allegation is made in the charge sheet that A1 to A3 also participated in secreting the evidence of offence by digging a pit and burying the dead body. The ingredients of the alleged offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC are prima facie attracted. Petitioners hereinA2 and A3 are accused of the said offences.

¶8

6. Having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged and in view of the specific allegations contained in the charge sheet against the petitioners-A2 and A3, it is considered not a fit case at all to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the further proceedings against the petitioners 1 and 2-A2 and A3.

¶9

7. In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶10

_______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶11

20^th July, 2011. Tsy

Betappa v. The State of Andhra pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Betappa 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

Sri Veera Padmaja Oil and Flore Mills, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Fakruddin,S/o. Shaik Yakoob, Vs Mrs. Bina Agarwal

Telukutla Chinnapareddy, Vs Nagepogu Benjimen

Mohd. Arshad Ali Khan Vs Smt. Khatiya Begum

Merneedi Veerraju Vs Agraharapu Venkata Ramanayya

Tirukkovilluru Peethambaram Vs Nagala Appa Rao