Dismissed

K. Pratap Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC5 Nov 2011CRLP/9613/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that failure to issue copies of documents is not a ground for quashing a criminal challan (CC.) under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the statutory duty to supply copies arises only after the accused enters appearance. The petitioner was directed to first recall his non-bailable warrant.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed with a direction to the accused to recall the non-bailable warrant before seeking copies of documents.

K. Pratap Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARA

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9613 of 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner who is accused in CC.No.326 of 2009, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Bhaimsa, Adilabad District, filed this petition. The petitioner’s counsel stated that he is seeking quashing of CC.No.326 of 2009 only on the ground that copies therein were not furnished to him inspite of he applying for the same. The question of supplying the copies to an accused person arises under Section 207 Cr.P.C., only after the accused entered appearance before the Magistrate in that criminal case. On such appearance, the Magistrate is expected to furnish free copies of all the documents, including charge sheet filed by the Police or the complainant into Court.

¶5

2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that when the petitioner’s counsel filed a petition in CC.No.326 of 2009 under Section 188(2) Cr.P.C. praying to issue certified copies of the complaint and sworn statement, the said petition was rejected by the lower Court. Surprisingly, the original petition along with original manuscript order of the Magistrate rejecting

¶6

that petition is filed before this Court. It is not known how the petitioner came into possession of the said original petition filed into the Court and the original order passed by the Magistrate in manuscript.

¶7

3. The Magistrate refused to give copies by giving reason to the effect that the accused was absconding inspite of issuing of non-bailable warrant against him and that therefore, he is not entitled for copies prayed for by him.

¶8

4. In the circumstances, the petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the Magistrate and seek recalling of non-bailable warrant issued against him by filing necessary petition under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. and thereafter file necessary copy application for the documents, in which event, the Magistrate shall issue copies of what ever documents prayed for by the petitioner. Failure to issue copies of documents sought for by the petitioner, is no ground for quashing CC.No.326 of 2009 in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶9

5. Subject to the above observations, the Criminal

¶10

Petition is dismissed.

¶11

______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶12

Dt:05.11.2011 ysk

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶14

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9613 of 2009

¶15

Dt:05.11.2011

¶16

ysk

K. Pratap Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Pratap Rao 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

D. Raviunder Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chakali Yellaiah Vs The State of A.P.

B. Venkatramana, (a 1) Vs State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

M.Ramalingeshwar Reddy , M.Rama Rangeshwar Reddy Vs The State of A.P.

S.Rajiv Kumar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Anjaneyulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor