M.VENKATA MOHAN PRASAD vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 8219

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRSENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1625 OF 2023 Between:
1. M.VENKATA MOHAN PRASAD S/o Late Chengalrayulu, Aged about 40 years, Government Employee, R/o D.No.16-12-17/B-1, Kanakabhushanam Lay-out, Near Padmavathi Park, Tirupathi, Balaji District.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.
2. A. Seneha Latha W/o M. Venkata Mohan Prasad, Aged about 40 years, Hindu, R/o D.No.2-748, Sowkar Bunglow Street, Kongareddipalle, Chittoor, Chittoor District.
3. Poorna Prakyath S/o M. Mohan Prasad, Aged about 13 years, Minor, Represented by his natural guardian/ mother
2nd Respondent- A. Seneha Latha W/o M. Venkata Mohan Prasad,Aged about 40 years, Hindu, R/o D.No.2-748, Sowkar Bunglow Street, Kongareddipalle, Chittoor, Chittoor District.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner(s): CHANDRA SEKHAR ILAPAKURTI Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following: ORDER THE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI HON’BLE Criminal Petition No.1625 of 2023

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to quash the impugned non-bailable warrant against the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1637 of 2016 in DVC No.20 of 2013 dated

17.01.2017 passed by the III additional Judicial First Class

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the respondents No.2 and 3 who are wife and son of the petitioner filed D.V.No.20 of 2013 on the file of the Court of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittoor seeking monetary reliefs and the D.V.No.20 of 2013 was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2017 on the file of the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor was filed. The 2nd respondent herein filed Crl.M.P.No.1637 of 2016 in DVC No.20 of 2013 for recovery of maintenance amount from the petitioner. The learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittoor issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1637 of 2016 in DVC No.20 of 2013.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State.

Crl.P.No.1625 of 2023 2 023:APHC:15369

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequently also the petitioner filed petitions under Section 317 of Cr.P.C and the same were allowed. He further submitted that one more non-bailable warrant was also issued vide in Crl.M.P.No.801 of 2018 in DVC No.20 of 2013, thereafter the same was recalled by the Order dated 20.01.2023 of the High Court vide Crl.P.No.388 of 2023. It is also submitted that recently again non-bailable warrant was issued. Under these circumstances, it seems that the petitioner could have filed appropriate application before the trial Court to recall the order to issue non-bailable warrant ordered dated 17.01.2017 as it is only a formal order to be passed in view of subsequent events. Without approaching the trial Court, the petitioner has come to this Court. This is a case where jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. need not be exercised in view of alternative way remedy available.

5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of giving liberty to approach the trial Court and move appropriate application. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date : 08-05-2023 SAB

Click Here to Read the rest of this document