//
you're reading...
legal issues

As the complaint was taken on the file against 13 accused and the petitioner is one among them and the filing of the present petition, at the time of the disposal of the Sessions Case No.122 of 2008, viewed from any angle, is a speculative one without any just and reasonable cause, much less without any basis to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I see no grounds to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.122 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. Accordingly the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Ramgopalpet/James Street Police Station

Image via Wikipedia

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO

Criminal Petition No.7291 of 2008

23-3-2011 

N.Ranga Rao 

The State of Andhra Pradesh,Rep. by Public Prosecutor,High Court 
Buildings,Hyderabad and another 

Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri S.R.Sanku, Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor,High Court of A.P.,
Hyderabad. 
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri Y.Vivekananda Swamy, Advocate 

:ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") to quash the proceedings in
S.C.No.122 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge,
Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District.
It is urged by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the present
petitioner is accused No.2 in S.C.No.122 of 2008. It is further urged that A-2
is working as ASI of Police in West Godavari District and the present complaint
is motivated as the petitioner registered different crimes against the
respondent No.2 and he submitted that the details of the crimes registered
against respondent No.2, which reads as follows:
1. Crime No.137 of 2001 u/s 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 498-A of IPC
registered by the petitioner herein.
2. Crime No.24 of 2002 u/s 323, 506(2) R/w Section 34 of IPC registered by the
petitioner herein.
3. Crime No.1 of 2002 u/s 420 IPC registered by the Sub-Inspector of Chebrolu
Police Station.
4. Crime No.100 of 2002 u/s 324, 506(2) r/w 34 of IPC registered by the Head
Constable of Chebrolu P.S.
5. Crime No.9 of 2002 it is significant that Dandru Subba Rao the husband of the
2nd respondent filed another complaint against the S.I. of Chebrolu Police
Station, and this petitioner citing them as A-1 and A-2 and 17 others on the
file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem
and the Ganapavaram Police, to whom this complaint was forwarded, registered 
Crime No.9 of 2002 referred the same as false.
6. The 2nd respondent also filed a complaint against Dy. Superintendent of
Police, Eluru (who is the controlling authority on the Chebrolu Police Station)
before the Lokayuktha, A.P., Hyderabad, alleging that when she was taken to him
by the petitioner, she was abused by the said D.S.P. in filthy language. This
complaint was also closed.It is also further urged that the allegation in the complaint is that the
petitioner herein took the 2nd respondent to the house of Deputy Superintendent
of Police on 4.9.2002 where she was abused and scolded. It is urged that on
4.9.2002 the petitioner was on duty and did not go to the office of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police and in proof of the same he filed the certified copy of
the case diary dated 03.09.2002. Finally he further urged that the petitioner
put in more than 35 years of service without any remarks and the present
complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law and that the 2nd respondent
did not secure any sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. to proceed against the
petitioner, who is a Public Servant.
Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to quash the
proceedings in S.C.No.122 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Assistant Sessions
Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District?
 As seen from the complaint, as many as 13 persons are made as accused and the 
petitioner herein is arrayed as 2nd accused. The sum and substance of the
averments in the complaint is that on 4.9.2002 the petitioner along with other
accused came to the house of A1 and participated wrongful assembly and that on 
05.09.2002 an attack was made on the complainant and her husband. The learned 
Magistrate having recorded the sworn statements of the witnesses under Section
202 of Cr.P.C. taken the complaint on file for the offences under Sections 109,
447, 323, 324, 379 read with Sections 511, 354 and 34 of IPC. The other accused
have not challenged the proceedings before the learned Magistrate at the initial
stage. Moreover, the present petitioner also did not raise any objection at the
initial stage after taking cognizance of the matter by the learned Magistrate.
Admittedly, the complaint was taken on file as P.R.C.No.41 of 2002, thereafter
it was committed to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem and
re-numbered as S.C.No.122 of 2008. There is time gap, nearly six years from the
date of registering the P.R.C. and Sessions Case. As already stated, the
grievance of the complainant is against the 13 persons and the present
petitioner is one among them. Having waited for all these years from the date
of filing the complaint till it was numbered as Sessions Case No.122 of 2008,
the filing of the petition to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.122 of 2008 that
too by a single individual, who is arrayed as accused, in my view, is only an
after thought and the reason is obvious. The petitioner pleaded an alibi by
filing the case diary. The truth or otherwise of the alibi will be decided in
due course of trial.
As the complaint was taken on the file against 13 accused and the petitioner is
one among them and the filing of the present petition, at the time of the
disposal of the Sessions Case No.122 of 2008, viewed from any angle, is a
speculative one without any just and reasonable cause, much less without any
basis to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I see
no grounds to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.122 of 2008 on the file of the
Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District.
Accordingly the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,883,999 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: