M.V.PATRUDU v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In that view of the matter, the Criminal Petition is disposed of and the
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 437, 438, 439, 482
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Judgment
Cause title
RESPONDENT
/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.44 OF 2012 on the file of Hon’ble Court of Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Paderu and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of C.C.No.44 OF 2012 on the file of Hon’ble Court of Judicial. First-Class Magistrate, Paderu and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings ,‹in C.C.No.44 OF 2012 on the file of Hon’ble Court of Judicial First-Class-- Magistrate, Paderu pending disposal of the quash petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. NANI BABU ROBBA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Operative part
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short „Cr.P.C.‟) is filed by the Petitioner seeking the following relief: “ ... to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2012 on the file of Hon’ble Court of Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Paderu and pass ..” Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent State. Perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that Petitioner worked as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in APEPDCL, Paderu Division from 2004 to 2007 and was transferred on promotion to Paderu and Petitioner was implicated in the subject crime and he was dismissed from service vide Memo No.04.12.2010 by respondent authorities. Further, Petitioner is no way related to the remittance of EPF, PT and IT and the entire transaction took place at the instance/supervision of A.2 and A.3 and there is no role of the Petitioner. During hearing, learned counsel restricted the prayer to dispense with the presence of the Petitioner before the Trial Court and without causing any prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Petitioner, this Criminal Petition may be disposed of. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the CC is of the year 2012 and trial is at fag end and the Court may pass appropriate orders. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Petition is disposed of and the presence of the Petitioner / Accused No.1 before the Trial Court is dispensed with, except on the specific dates as directed by the Trial Court. Petitioner is at 3 liberty to raise all contentions in the defence before the Trial Court. Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paderu, is directed to dispose of CC No.44 of 2012 as expeditiously as possible without granting adjournments in a casual manner on mere asking and report the progress of the case to the Registrar (Judicial) by
30.12.2025. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Mjl/* DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Criminal Petition No. 8071 of 2023
29.10.2025 Mjl /*
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In that view of the matter, the Criminal Petition is disposed of and the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 437, 438, 439, 482; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 29 Oct 2025. The bench was VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.