IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI
B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.
Nagandla China Subharao, S/o Chalapathi Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 130,131,132,133 OF 2024 I.A.Nos. 2 & 3 of 2024
Decided on : 11-07-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of criminal petitions and facts (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. details of offences and allegations (Para 5) |
| 3. compromise between parties (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. legal principles regarding quashing of criminal proceedings (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's decision and outcome (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.
All these Criminal Petitions, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC') are filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners therein in Crime Nos.228 of 2023, 229 of 2023, 230 of 2023 and 227 of 2023 respectively on the file of Martur Police Station, Bapatia District.
3. All these criminal petitions arose out of different complaints between the same set of parties, however, the cause of action for all these complaints is one and the same.
4. For better appreciation, the offences alleged against the petitioners in each petition are detailed hereunder;
| SI. No. | Criminal Petition No. | FIR Number | Name of the complainant | Offences alleged |
| (1) | 130 of 2024 (filed by A1 to A19) | 228 of 2023 | Marturu Veeranjaneyulu | 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 354 and 506 r/w 149 IPC. |
| (2) | 131 of 2024 (filed by A1 to A18) | 229 of 2023 | Marturu Srikanth | 323, 341 and 506 r/w 34 IPC |
| (3) | 132 of 2024 (filed by A1 to A18) | 230 of 2023 | Chandolu Muntaj | 427, 506 and 509 r/w 34 IPG |
| (4) | 133 of 2024 (filed by A1 to A3) | 227 of 2023 | Nagandia Chinna Subba Rao | 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC, 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act |
(a) The de facto complainant in Criminal Petition No.130 of 2024 is a resident of Martur, near Poleramma temple, Bapatia District and on 27.09.2023, at about 20.00 hours, when he along with his wife and children were taking meals and having heard a big sound in front of their house, they came out of the house and found a car bearing No.AP 39 JR 2566 driven by Nagandia Subba Rao dashed his bike which was parked on the margin of the road in front pf their house. On questioning the same, A1 abused the complainant, beat on his face with hand and the complainant received injuries as the keys of the car hit him. Thereafter, A1 to A19 forming themselves into unlawful assembly assaulted the complainant and others by trespassing into his house armed with deadly weapons, voluntarily causing hurt with hands and legs and outraging the modesty of a woman and threatening the complainant and others in prosecution of their common object. On the basis of the complaint, a case in Crime No.228 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 354 and 506 r/w 149 IPC came to be registered.
(b) The case of the de facto complainant in Criminal Petition No.131 of 2024 in the complaint given by him is to the effect that on 27.09.2023 at about 8 PM, while his elder brother, Marturu Veeranjaneyulu after parking his motor cycle on the road in front of their house and while his elder brother and sister-in-law were taking meals, one car bearing No. AP 39 JR 2566, driven by Nagandia Subba Rao with high speed dashed the motor cycle. On hearing the sound, his elder brother and sister-in-law came out of the house and when questioned, the said Subba Rao beat his brother with hands on his face and outraged the modesty of his sister-in-iaw by behaving indecently with her. Basing on his complaint, a case in Crl.P.Nos.130, 131, 132 & 133 Of 2024 Crime No.229 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 506 r/w 34 IPC has been registered.
(c) The de facto complainant in Criminal Petition No.132 of 2024 is a government se
Monica Kumar (Dr.) Vs. State of UP
Mrs. Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gourishetty Mahesh
Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Smbhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal
State of Panjab Vs. Gurdial Singh
Kapil Agarwal & Others Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others
Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujrat and Another
The High Court possesses the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC when parties reach a compromise, even in cases involving non-compoundable offences.
A redundant criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to continue.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent an abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice, especially in cases whe....
Offence can be compounded and quashed where chances of conviction are bleak and remote.
The court can quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC based on a voluntary compromise, balancing the objectives of the SC/ST Act with the nature of the offence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.