Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 31 (AP)

Y. Somu Babu v. State of A. P.

2020-01-22

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2020
JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J. 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused to quash all further proceedings in C.C. No. 214 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ponnur. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C. No. 214 of 2019. The petitioner was charged for the offence under Section 435 of IPC and the charge-sheet was filed against him. 2. This Court has heard Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was trying to set on fire a motorcycle bearing No. AP-07AK-6688. Investigation was carried out on the basis of the FIR and a charge-sheet was also filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the State is not the owner of the said motorcycle. He also argues that the owner did not make a compliant at all. He also alleges that the vehicle, which is the subject matter of the case has not been seized nor have any photographs been taken of the motor cycle, which is supposed to have been burnt. While the allegations are that the motorcycle is totally burnt, learned counsel points out that there is no material available to show that it is in fact burnt. He points out that in the statement of LW-1 itself there is a correction in the number of the motor cycle. The complaint according to him is given for vehicle No. AP-07AK-2688 but in the statement of LW-1 the same is seen as AP-07AK-6688. 5. This court also at the request of the learned Public Prosecutor gave time to the police to explain about the alleged motorcycle. The Station House Officer, Ponnur Urban Station appeared before this Court. He stated that the motor cycle which is the subject matter of the case has been given back to the original owner and is not in the custody of the police. He also agreed that no photographs were taken nor any evidence is produced to show that the motorcycle was actually burnt. 6. The 2nd respondent, who is the complainant did not appear despite notice. Notice was served but there was no appearance. 7. He also agreed that no photographs were taken nor any evidence is produced to show that the motorcycle was actually burnt. 6. The 2nd respondent, who is the complainant did not appear despite notice. Notice was served but there was no appearance. 7. In view of the clear and categorical statement of the Station House Officer that the motorcycle (burnt or otherwise) is not in the custody of the police, that no photographs were taken nor is there any other evidence to show about the alleged offence, this Court is of the opinion that continuing the prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that continuing the prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. In the absence of any material whatsoever to establish that a motorcycle was in fact burnt, this Court is of the opinion that this case is a sheer case of abuse of process of the Court. The statement of the Station House Officer in the open Court is also clear that the owner has not complained about the burning of his property. For all these reasons all further proceedings in C.C. No. 214 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ponnur are quashed. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. 9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.