Telangana High Court
Pinninty Radha Krishna vs The State Of Telangana on 23 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4252 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Cr.P.C) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.6 in C.C.No.1271 of 2019 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with 511 and 120 (B) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short 'the IPC').
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 registered a complaint against the petitioner and other accused stating that they are exchanging the banned Brasil Cruzados currency note as genuine in Indian currency. As such, respondent No.2 registered a case in crime No.517 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with 511 and 120 (B) read with 34 of the IPC. After completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.1928 of 2016 and thereafter, on completion of full-fledged trial, accused Nos.2, 3 and 7 were acquitted. However, the petitioner/accused No.6, was not able to appear before the trial Court, the case was split up against the petitioner and renumbered as C.C.No.1271 of 2019, before 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4252 of 2024 the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Hence, the present Criminal Petition.
3. Heard Sri Anjaneyulu Chandubatla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no evidence against accused Nos.2, 3 and 7 who are the accused in same Crime and after full-fledged trial, they were acquitted. He further submitted that even if the trial is conducted against the petitioner/accused No.6, no purpose would be served, as such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against him.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that though the case against accused Nos.2, 3 and 7 ended in acquittal, the petitioner/accused No.6 has to appear before the trial Court and face the trial and therefore, the same will be decided by the trial Court.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4252 of 2024 on record, it appears that the trial Court has examined the other accused Nos.2, 3 and 7 and they have not made any mention in their evidence about the petitioner/accused No.6 committing the offence. Further, the allegation against the accused Nos.2, 3 and 7 were not established, they were acquitted in C.C.No.1928 of 2016.
7. Though there are catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, this Court has relies upon the judgments in Pothula Suresh vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh 1 and Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab 2, wherein it is observed that when some of the accused in the same case found not guilty and are acquitted after full-fledged trial, the proceedings against the other accused are liable to be quashed.
8. In the present case also, accused Nos.2, 3 and 7 were acquitted after full-fledged trial in C.C.No.1928 of 2016. Except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence to identify the petitioner/accused No.6. Hence, continuation of proceedings is unwarranted. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.1271 of 1 2011 Crl.L.J. 609 2 (2018) 11 SCC 570 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4252 of 2024 2019 against the petitioner/accused No.6 are also liable to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.6 in C.C.No.1271 of 2019 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 23.04.2024 SAI