Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 591 (AP)

Boyilla Venkateswarlu Reddy v. U. Anuradha

2020-09-08

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

body2020
JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This Criminal Revision Case is filed questioning the impugned order dated 21.08.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.392 of 2018 in C.C.No.8 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners, who are the accused in the said case, under Section 239 Cr.P.C. to discharge them from the said case, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for 2nd respondent-State. 3. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 7 in C.C.No.8 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur. They are being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 434, 506 r/w.149 of IPC. 4. The petitioners sought discharge from the case mainly on the ground that the name of accused No.7 is mentioned as "Boyilla Lakshmi" and her actual name is "Boyilla Lakshmi Prasuna" and the father of accused No.1, is no more, and in the descriptive particulars of accused No.1, it is shown that the father of accused No.1 is alive. Further, the ages of accused Nos.1 and 7 are mentioned as 45 and 46 years respectively, though accused No.7 is 10 years younger to accused No.1. Therefore, it is clear that only table investigation was done. So, on the aforesaid grounds the petitioners sought discharge from the case. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the trial Court dismissed the said petition by the impugned order on the ground that the aforesaid grounds urged are not legally valid grounds for the purpose of discharging the petitioners from the said case. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioners. 7. None of the grounds urged by the petitioners, as mentioned supra, are valid and tenable grounds for the purpose of discharging the petitioners from the said case. The mere discrepancy in the name of accused No.7 and the variation in the ages, as mentioned in the charge-sheet relating to accused Nos.1 and 7, and mere fact that father of accused No.1 is shown to be alive in the descriptive particulars in the charge-sheet are not at all valid grounds for the purpose of discharging the petitioners from the said case. They are trivial grounds which can be explained by the prosecution during the course of trial of the case. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be discharged from the case on the aforesaid trivial grounds. So, this Court do not see any valid ground even to admit the case for hearing. The impugned order passed by the trial Court dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners seeking discharge from the case, is perfectly sustainable under law and it calls for no interference in this revision. 8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall also stand closed.