Dismissed

Vijjurothu Chinababu v. State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., High Court of A.P.

Telangana HC3 Feb 2012CRLP/13108/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash proceedings for cricket betting under the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974, holding that the Mediator's report and police charge sheet contained sufficient material to continue the investigation.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was dismissed and the interim order dated 28-12-2010 was vacated.

Vijjurothu Chinababu Vs State of a.P., Rep. by… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition No.13108 of 2010

¶3

(Dated : 03-02-2012)

¶4

Between: Vijjurothu Chinababu S/o Satyanarayana And another

¶5

…Petitioners A n d State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,

¶6

….Respondent

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶8

Criminal Petition No.13108 of 2010

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C by A-2 and A-6 in S.T.C.No.7 of 2010 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District to quash the proceedings therein.

¶11

2. The Sub Inspector of Police surprised the premises bearing Door No.1-1-6, Juvvulapalem Road, Bhimavaram, on obtaining permission under Section 5 of A.P.Gaming Act, 1974 and found Talluri Ramesh (A-1) betting on cell phone in connection with one day cricket match between England and Newzeland; seized cell phones and examined A-1 in the presence of the panch witnesses. A panchanama came to be drafted on 26-6-2008 at 6 P.M. Basing on the panchanama, a case in Crime No.105 of 2008 under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P.Gaming Act, 1974 came to be registered. After due investigation, a charge sheet came to be presented before II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimaaram. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as S.T.C.No.7 of 2010.

¶12

Hence, this petition by A-2 and A-6 in S.T.C.No.7 of 2010 to quash the proceedings therein.

¶13

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

¶14

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not present at the time of surprise of the premises bearing Dr.No.1-1-6 situated at Juvvulapalem and there is no material to connect the petitioners with A-1, who is found at the premises in which case, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners in S.T.C.No.7 of 2010 amounts to abuse of process of Court.

¶15

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the interrogation of A-1 reveals participation of the petitioners herein and the same has been reflected in the Mediator’s report dated 21-6-2008 and therefore, proceedings in S.T.C.No.7 of 2010 cannot be quashed.

¶16

6. I have gone through the charge sheet dated 3-10-2008 filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram II Town P.S. He surprised the premises bearing Door No.1-1-6 after obtaining Warrant of Search from the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kovvur. The reason for conducting search of the premises is based on the information that Cricket betting is going on in the said premises. The Sub Inspector of Police also seized cell phones and other incriminating material to suggest that cricket betting is going on. The involvement of the petitioners came to be disclosed by A-1 in the presence of the panch witnesses. Indeed, a case in Crime No. 105 of 2008 came to be registered basing on the mediator’s report dated 21-6-2008. Such is the material available on record, further proceedings in S.T.C.No.7 of 2010 cannot be interdicted by invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶17

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to the dismissal of the criminal petition, the interim order granted on 28-

¶18

12-2010 shall stand vacated. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 03-02-2012 RAR

Vijjurothu Chinababu v. State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., High Court of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijjurothu Chinababu v. State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., High Court 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

Nagarajan Lakshmanan Vs The State of a.P., through Sho.

M.Surya Narayana Vs The state of Ap.,through Sho,Kphb Colony P.S.

Yerramreddy Chandra Shekar Reddy Vs The State of a.P., through SHO

Jangili Nagender Rao Vs State of a.P., rep. by its P.P.

A. Venkata Subba Reddy Vs a. Lakshmi Devi

Sri Mallidi Veera Raghava Reddy Vs The State of A.P.