Allowed

Pedagopi Gurrayya v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC14 Jul 2016CRLRC/1840/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, the Court allowed the petition to quash forfeiture proceedings against the petitioner. The Court held it was a fit case to set aside the order of the Estate Magistrate regarding the bond violation.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case allowed setting aside the proceedings in M.C.No.18 of 2016 against the petitioner.

Pedagopi Gurrayya Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1840 OF 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.,) seeking to set aside the proceedings in M.C.No.18 of 2016, dated 13.06.2016, on the file of the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Alamuru, East Godavari District.

¶5

It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner entered into a bond for good behavior for a period of one year before the Mandal Executive Magistrate on 12.02.2016 and in default to forfeit the amount of Rs.50,000/-. Subsequently, it was reported that the petitioner committed the offence and basing on the report of the SHO concerned, the learned Magistrate having come to the conclusion that the petitioner violated the bond, issued notice of forfeiture directing the petitioner to pay penalty of Rs.50,000/- i.e., the amount of bond within 15 days or to show a cause. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this revision case.

¶6

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Executive Magistrate has not followed the procedure and that the provisions of Section 122(b) of the CrPC., can be invoked to arrest any person, who breached his bond executed under Section 117 CrPC., and that the petitioner has not executed any bond under Section 117 CrPC., and that the learned Executive Magistrate erred in enforcing the bond alleged to have been executed by the petitioner under Section 110 CrPC.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings in the above M.C.

¶9

The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly allowed setting aside the proceedings against the petitioner in M.C.No.18 of 2016 on the file of the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Alamuru, East Godavari District. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any shall stand closed.

¶10

_____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶11

14.07.2016 pln

Pedagopi Gurrayya v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pedagopi Gurrayya v. 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

Kotha Venkata Subba Rao Vs The State of A.P

Kotha Chandra Sekhara Prasad, Vs Kotha Parvathi

Chavvakula Abhilash Lagow and 2 Others Vs the State of Telangana and Another]

Bonagiri Naga Venkata Satya Sivarama Krishna Trinadh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Bachu Nageswara Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kommaboina Lakshmi Narayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh