A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PEITITON No. 2779 of 2007 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 109, 147, 148, 149, 307, 364, 506
Judgment
- This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.51 of 2007 on the file of the Chillakur Police Station, Nellore District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 364, 506 and 109 read with 149 IPC. The allegations made in the complaint clearly disclose that the land admeasuring Acs.5-18 cents in Sy.No.61 of Vellapalem Village was assigned to one Perugu Subbaiah, who is the grand father of the 2nd respondent, on 15-09-1962. The 3rd respondent, who is the nephew of the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint with the police of Chillakur on 16-04-2007 stating that the 2nd respondent raised paddy crop and while the 3rd respondent was harvesting the same along with others with machine, the petitioners-accused attacked them with stones and knives and he escaped from there, and the petitioners took away three persons viz., Siva Jyothi Kumar, Brahmam and Vamshi Krishna. Hence, the 3rd respondent filed the complaint apprehending that the petitioners may kill them. Basing on the said complaint, a crime has been registered. The case diary filed by the Public Prosecutor discloses that P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and all of them stated about the attack made by the petitioners, and the remand report dated 19-04-2007 filed by the Investigating Officer discloses that the wound certificate of the injured persons have to be received and he requested the learned Magistrate to remand A-2, A-5, A-6, A- 13, A-15, A-20 and A-21 to judicial custody.
Operative part
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that earlier also several cases were registered by the second respondent against some of the petitioners during the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 for the very same offences, that assignment made in favour of Perugu Subbaiah has been cancelled by the Joint Collector on 30-09-2009, and that the present complaint lodged is of civil in nature and therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law and hence the same are liable to be quashed. The subsequent cancellation of the assignment made in favour of the grand father of the 2nd respondent itself establishes the fact that on the date of commission of offence, the 2nd respondent is the owner of the property and the complaint allegations show that he raised paddy crop and while the 3rd respondent was harvesting the same along with others with the machine, the petitioners attacked them with stones and knives, which prima facie constitutes a cognizable offence, which the police are bound to investigate and file a report. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal[1], the petitioners case do not fall under the illustrations enumerated therein to quash the proceedings in view of the specific allegations made in complaint against the petitioners. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 27th August, 2010 Prv [1] AIR 1992 SC 604
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 109, 147, 148, 149, 307, 364, 506.
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.