Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 742 (AP)

Polarapu Chandra v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2023-05-02

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2023
ORDER : This Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC is filed by the petitioner/A3 with a prayer to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.6 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandalur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 427 and 506 r/w 34 IPC. 2. Heard Sri V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State. 3. Facts, in brief, are that LW1-Polavarapu Sujatha, is a resident of Venkata Narayana Palli village and she is the injured and complainant and LW2-Polarapu Beula is the daughter of LW1. On 29.12.2009 at 8 pm, all the accused/A1 to A6, with a common intention and ulterior motive abused the complainant. A6 supplied hot water and gave to A5; A5 poured on the complainant the hot water, which fell on LW2. All the accused went up the house of LW1 and hurled stones resulting in injuries to LWs 1 & 2, besides damage to the doors and windows belonging to LW1. LWs 1 and 2 were admitted in the Government Hospital, Rajampet. LW6 J.Subbarayudu, HC 1531 of Rajampet Urban Police Station, recorded the statement of LW1 and forwarded the same to LW7-T.V.B.Subramanyam, Sub Inspector of Police, Penagalur, on the point of jurisdiction, who registered the case in Crime No.74 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 427 and 506 read with 34 IPC. LW5-Bala Kondrayudu, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Medical Officer, Rajampet, treated the injured/LWs 1 & 2 and opined that the injuries found on LWs 1 & 2 are simple in nature. During the course of investigation, on 02.01.2010, at 9 am, LW7 arrested A1 to A6 at the house of A2 at Venkatanarayanapalli village and sent them for remand. Thus, charge sheet came to be filed against all the accused for the above offences. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandalur, registered the case in P.R.C.No.4 of 2010 and committed the same to the Court of Sessions, Kadapa, against Accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 and the Sessions Court registered the case as S.C.No.384 of 2013 and made over the same to the Court of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajampet. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, vide judgment, dated 13.04.2015, found the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 & 6 not guilty and acquitted them. 5. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, vide judgment, dated 13.04.2015, found the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 & 6 not guilty and acquitted them. 5. The case against A3 & A5 was split up and numbered as P.R.C.No.6 of 2013. 6. It is the case of the petitioner/A3 that he is innocent and he was falsely implicated in the case. Further, during trial in S.C.No.384 of 2013, the witnesses who were examined as PWs 1 to 3 disowned their statements recorded by the police as in exhibits P2, P3 & P4 respectively. It is the case of the petitioner/A3 that as the allegations against accused Nos.1, 2, 4 & 6 in S.C.No.384 of 2013 were held not proved, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner/A3 on the self-same allegations is nothing but abuse of process of law and no purpose would be served by prosecuting the petitioner/A3, and therefore, proceedings against the petitioner/A3 are liable to be quashed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings in a sessions case were quashed by this High Court under similar circumstances in Pothula Suresh @ Beri Komti Venkataramaiah S/o Venkata Subbaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2011 Law Suit (AP) 267, wherein it was observed at paras 11 to 15 as follows: “11. In this regard, it is to be noticed that in Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar [ (2008) 14 SCC 1 ], Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Rajvir Industrial Ltd. [ (2008) 13 SCC 678 ] and State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [ (2005) 1 SCC 568 ], the Apex Court laid down certain principles for quashing of criminal charge/complaint/proceedings while invoking the provisions under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. In Rukmini's Case (supra), the relevant portion of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court runs as follows: where the defence produces some material which convincingly demonstrates that the whole prosecution case is totally absurd or totally concocted. 13. In Suryalakshmi's case (supra), it is held as under: Disputed question of fact not required to be gone into by Court But documents of unimpeachable character can be taken into consideration. 14. 13. In Suryalakshmi's case (supra), it is held as under: Disputed question of fact not required to be gone into by Court But documents of unimpeachable character can be taken into consideration. 14. In State of Orissa's case (supra), it was held as follows: as it would compel the accused to face trial despite being in a position to produce unimpeachable and unassailable material to show his innocence at the stage of framing of charge, held, not acceptable. 15. By going through the contents in the above said decisions, this Court is of the view that while placing reliance on the evidence recorded by the competent Court, the co-accused were acquitted. Further, the evidence of the witnesses was against the case of the prosecution. If the evidence of the witnesses is against some of the accused, then trial can be proceeded against a person who is facing trial. But, in this case, the witnesses, more particularly the witnesses those who claim to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, have turned hostile to the entire case of the prosecution. Thus, in these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the pendency of the case against the petitioner in the present S.C.No.2 of 2011 is abuse of process of law and further proceeding with the trial against the petitioner is a futile exercise.” 8. In view of the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances noted above, this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner/A3 is abuse of process of law, particularly as the witnesses who claim to be eye witnesses to the occurrence have not supported the case of the prosecution and were acquitted, continuation of trial against the petitioner herein, who is A3, is a futile exercise. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/A3 in P.R.C.No.6 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, at Nandalur, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.