Bojja Rosaiah @ Roshan v. The State of A.P
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly the Criminal Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 420
Judgment
Cause title
The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another .. Petitioner
Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7327 of 2008
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) requesting the Court to quash the proceedings in Crime No.88 of 2008 dated 21.10.2008 on the file of the Station House Officer, Porumamilla Police Station, Kadapa District. It is urged by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the de facto complainant earlier on 21.10.2008 lodged a report against one Bojja Goverdhan for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and thereafter she lodged another complaint dated 31.10.2008 on the same allegations against the present petitioner herein and the latter complaint dated 31.10.2008 is with tissue of lies. He also further urged that at present Bojja Goverdhan, who is accused in Crime No.88 of 2008 dated 21.10.2008 is living with the de facto complainant after registering the FIR and the present petitioner, who is none other than the brother of A-1 in the aforesaid crime, is nothing to do with their affairs. Now the point for consideration is whether the registering of the Crime No.88 of 2008 dated 31.10.2008 is sustainable? As seen from the record, basing on the complaint lodged by one Pasupula Vasantha Kumari a case in Crime No.88 of 2008 was registered on 21.10.2008 against one Bojja Goverdhan. As per the averments in the complaint, the de facto complainant and Goverdhan fell in love with each other and led marital life. Thereafter Goverdhan deserted and refused to marry her. When the investigation is pending in the said crime, the impugned First Information Report dated
31.10.2008 was lodged by the de facto complainant. The said First Information Report was also registered as a case in Crime No.88 of 2008 for the same allegations for which the earlier First Information Report dt.21.10.2008 was registered. A perusal of the averments in the complaint dated 21.10.2008, they are replica of the averments made in the complaint dated
Operative part
31.10.2008 except making some allegations against the petitioner herein. In my opinion, the latest complaint dated 31.10.2008 is an improved one and an after thought to rope the petitioner into the allegations made earlier in the complaint dated 21.10.2008. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that after registering the complaint dated 21.10.2008 the accused therein and de facto complainant are living as wife and husband. Therefore, in view of my observations stated supra, the subsequent First Information Report dated 31.10.2008 is nothing but an after thought and same was pressed into service for the reasons best known to the de facto complainant. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the subsequent First Information Report dated 31.10.2008 registered under the same Crime No.88 of 2008 do not fit in the facts and circumstances of the instant complaint on the hand. Accordingly, the First Information Report dated 31.10.2008 in Crime No.88 of 2008 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly the Criminal Petition is allowed. _______________ K.S.APPA RAO, J 23-03-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7327 of 2008 MR DATE: 23-03-2011
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly the Criminal Petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 420.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 23 Mar 2011. The bench was K S APPA RAO.
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.