Allowed

S.Bala Krishna v. the State of Tg., Rep. by P.P. and Another

Telangana HC20 Jul 2023CRLP/15453/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner as the sole direct witness (the complainant) died during the incident, rendering the prosecution case based on hearsay evidence unserviceable. prayed for the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.856 of 2011 registered before the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, were quashed.

S.Bala Krishna Vs the State of Tg., Rep. by P.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 15453 OF 2016

¶6

Between:

¶7

S.BALA KRISHNA, S/o. Narasimhappadu, Occ Ex-Chief Executive officer Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Seicuncierabad presenily working as Vice Chairman and l/anaging Director, A. P. Seed Development Corporation, office at Haca Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶8

...PETTTTONEFyACCUSED(S)

¶9

AND

¶10

1 THE STATE OF TG., REP. BY P.P., Through Station House Officer, [\ilarredpally P.S., Secunderabad, Rep. by P.P. High Court, Hyderabad.

¶11

2 Sri Anil Kumar Singh, S/o. Late B.A. Singh, Occ Social Activist, Rlio. 12-D, Surya Enclave, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 8561201'l on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan ltdagistrate, Secunderabad and pass

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016 (CRLPMP. NO: 17501 OE 2q16)

¶15

Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the personal appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No. 85612011 on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad pending disposal of the above Criminal petition and pass

¶16

Learned counsel lor thc pctitioncr has contended that the entire prosecution case is bast:d on the sole testimon-r. of LW1/Anil Kumar Singh, who is the eve-u'itness to thc alleged incident of physical assault by the prcscnt petitioner. LW3/Kodali Rama Krishna is not eye-witness and his evidence is based on hearsay witness. Continuation of any procee dings lr,ithout any eye witness and basing on the evidence of LW3/ hearsa,, rvitness, results no positiveness. In the said circumstanccs, continuation of the proceedings against the petitiorrer/ accused n,ill amount to abuse of process of law. Further, he contended that the alleged incident occurred while the petitioner n,as discharging his official duty and in this regard, a complaint was given b.v the petitioner against the second respondent/complainant and thereafter, FIR was registered and after investigation, charge sheet has aiso been filed. He would further submit that rvhile the petitioner was discharging his official duty, respondent No.2 cannot be prosecuted without sanction of the authority concerned.

¶17

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State opposed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused.

¶18

¶19

¶20

Heard the learrrcd c<;uns<:l on eithe r side and perused th<: material placed on record.

¶21

A glance of the cl'rarge sheet, it appears that LW I /Anil Kumar Singh u.'as tl-re only direct witness and he allegedly sustained injuries in the incident and died. The evidence of LW2 is based on the hearsay inlormation. Therefore, continuation of the Criminal proceedings against the petitioner/ accused basing on the evidence of LW2 would end no result of intended purpose. Therefore, considering the death of complainant, who is the only direct witness to thc cntire case of the prosecution and without going into other contentions, this Court is inclined to quash the criminal proccedings

¶22

In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings irr C.C.No.856 of 2011 on the file of the learned X are Additional Chiel Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, hereby quashed

¶23

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if anv shall stand closed.

¶24

Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶25

//TRUE COPY// i/

¶26

SECTION OFFICER

¶27

To,

¶28

The X Additional Chief Metropolltan Magistrate, Secunderabad

¶29

The Station House Officer, Marredpally police Station, Hyderagbad

¶30

One CC to SRI K.R. Koteswara Rao, Advocate tOpUCl

¶31

One CC to SRI M.S. Chandresh, Advocate tOpUCI

¶32

one cc to the^pubric prosecutor (TG), High court for the state of rerangana, Hyderabad [OpUC]

¶33

Two CD Copies$-

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/0712023

ORDER

1 1.1C !i t'.1f5' Orq'
(
:-)
S2 NJB ?s8 :l
?,, !-':l'"cI"

¶38

CRLP.No.15453 of 2016

¶39

Allowing the Criminal Petition

¶40

S.Bala Krishna v. the State of Tg., Rep. by P.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Bala Krishna v. the State of Tg., Rep. by P.P. and Another

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

M.Raviteja Vs the State of Telangana

M. Raja Mani , Raja Mani and another Vs State of Telangana and another

S. Kamakshaiah And 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Fazal Ahmed Shaik Vs The State of Telangana

Peddaveni Mallaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Anudeep Gondra Vs The State of Telangana