Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 1558
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.
P.M. Satish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and others – Respondent
Crl. P No.6613 of 2022
Decided On : 24-10-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Anguru Manohar
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP)
The court upheld the right of the accused to raise defense contentions in trial proceedings while allowing their absence on non-specified dates, emphasizing fair trial principles.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Section 509 - Quashment of proceedings in CC No.3050 of 2022 for offence under Section 509 IPC - Accused sought to quash proceedings based on allegations of abuse against the complainant - Tribunal ruled to allow the accused to raise defenses at trial without requiring presence except on specific dates. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Rights of the Accused - The right to defend oneself in a trial must be preserved, allowing for contentions to be raised effectively. (Paras 4-6)
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged multiple instances of verbal abuse by the accused, leading to a police case under Section 509 IPC and charge-sheeting.
Findings of Court:
The Court allowed the petitioner's request to not be present in trial except for specified dates, ensuring fair trial rights.
Issues: The key question was whether the proceedings against the accused should be quashed on the basis of the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the accused’s ability to raise defenses in the trial, ensuring that the legal process respects their rights.
Result: Criminal petition disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accusation details regarding ipc section 509 (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. representation of parties in court hearing (Para 3) |
| 3. request to dispense presence before trial (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. order for disposition of petition (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT /ORDER :
The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') has been filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in CC No.3050 of 2022 on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offence punishable under Section 509 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (fort short, 'IPC').
2. Brief facts of the case are that
(i) On 26.10.2021 at 11.00 hours, de facto complainant went to her brother's house (LW2-Dondapati Madan @ Sanjay Kumar) at Visakhapatnam for casual talk. Petitioner/accused, who is the neighbour to her brother, abused her in filthy language and made bad comments. Petitioner/accused abused her at different occasions and insulting her on every aspect.
(ii) Basing on the report given by de facto complainant, Police registered as a case in Crime No.618 of 2021 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, against the accused, for the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge-sheet, which is numbered as CC No.3050 of 2022 on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, and took cognizance of the offence under Section 509 IPC against the accused. Seeking quashment of the case, the present criminal petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused.
3. Heard Sri Anguru Manohar, learned Counsel for petitioner and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1/State. Inspite of service of notice, none represented for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.
4. At the time of arguments, learned Counsel would submit that the criminal petition may be disposed of dispensing with the presence of the petitioner before the Trial Court by giving liberty to raise such contentions in his defence.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.
6. In that view, the criminal petition is disposed of. The petitioner is at liberty to raise the present contentions before the Trial Court in his defence and the learned Trial Judge may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Considering the request, the presence of the petitioner/accused before the Trial Court is dispensed with, except on the specific dates as directed by the Trial Court.
7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
