Allowed

Chundi Krishna Reddy,A3 v. Vangavaragu Balakrishna Reddy

Telangana HC4 Dec 2018CRLP/11636/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition filed by six petitioners to quash proceedings against them as an abuse of process of law. The court held that since the main case was split and accused were acquitted in a separate judgment, continuing proceedings was unjust.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in CRL.MP.No.4177 of 2009 in CC No.353 of 20110 against the petitioners are quashed and pending applications are closed.

Chundi Krishna Reddy,A3 Vs Vangavarag… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT JUSTI CE T.RAJANI

¶2

CRI MI NAL PETI TON No.1 1 6 3 6 OF 2 0 1 1

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed by the petitioners, who are A3 to A6 respectively, seeking to quash the proceedings in CRL.MP.No.4177 of 2009 in CC No.353 of 20110 on the file of the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali. The offence alleged are under Section 435 r/ w 34 IPC.

¶5

Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2^nd respondent as well as the counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶6

Initially, on the complaint lodged by the complainant, investigation was taken up and charge sheet was filed against two persons i.e, A1 and A2, deleting the names of these petitioners. Questioning the said final report, a protest petition was filed and the court, by virtue of the order dated 20.10.1999, took cognizance of the case and ordered addition of the names of the petitioners as A3 to A6 in the final report.

¶7

The counsel for the petitioners submits that the order does not reflect any reasons for taking cognizance on the protest petition. The charge sheet shows list of ten witnesses and it also shows that on the basis of the statements of the witnesses, the investigating officer came to an opinion that the case exists only against A1 and A2. Now the petitioners’ counsel submits that the case against A1 and A2 was split up and a judgment was rendered in this case, which was numbered as C.C.No.353

¶8

¶9

of 2010 and by virtue of the judgment, dated 18.09.2017, they were acquitted.

¶10

Hence, in view of the above, this court opines that continuation of further proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.

¶11

With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in 4177 of 2009 in CC No.353 of 20110 on the file of the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.

¶12

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending,

¶13

shall stand closed.

¶14

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
T.RAJANI , J
December 4, 2018
LMV

Chundi Krishna Reddy,A3 v. Vangavaragu Balakrishna Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chundi Krishna Reddy,A3 v. Vangavaragu Balakrishna Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Dhananjayulu, Chittoor District and 7 Others Vs State, Rep. by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and 2 Others

G.Hari Karishna Vs the State of A.P. and 3 Others

Dr.Rajashekar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and Anr., Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Pp., Hyderabad and Anr.

Syed Nazeem Hussain Vs The State ,Through Public Prosecutor

Bandi Nityananada Reddy Vs Sandanam Ashok Kumar

Md.Easaz Beg Vs Md.Kowshar Saheb