Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Paletigandla Rajini vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 February, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.472 of 2022
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."), is filed seeking
quash of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner/A.2 in
C.C.No.502 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioner is A.2 in C.C.No.502 of 2019 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa.
She has been facing prosecution for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 384, 379 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C.
As the petitioner went to Dubai after her marriage and as
she was not available for trial, the case against A.2 was separated.
Trial against A.1 took place. A.1 was acquitted in the said case as
per judgment of the trial Court dated 09.01.2020. Therefore, the
petitioner has now filed this criminal petition to quash the criminal
proceedings against her also as A.1 was acquitted after trial.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is
absolutely no evidence against A.1 to prove her complicity in
commission of the aforesaid offences and after appreciating the
evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted A.1. Therefore, he
would contend that as the same evidence is to be considered
against the petitioner/A.2 also, as no useful purpose would be
served that the petitioner is entitled for quash of the said
proceedings. Therefore, on the said ground, the petitioner sought
for quash of the said proceedings.
It is well settled law that mere acquittal of co-accused in
criminal case after trial by itself is not a valid ground for acquittal
of the other accused, whose case was separated in the said case.
The petitioner herein being A.2 has to face the prosecution and
trial has to be conducted against her and after appreciating the
evidence on record, the trial Court has to decide the culpability or
otherwise of the petitioner in the final adjudication of the case.
The Apex Court in the case of Megh Singh v. State of
Punjab1 held that acquittal of co-accused does not by itself entitle
the other accused in the same case to acquittal as a single
significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In another judgment
rendered in the case of Gorle S. Naidu v. State of A.P.2, the Apex
Court held that mere acquittal of a large number of co-accused
persons does not per se entitle others to acquittal. Following the
aforesaid two judgments of the Apex Court, the Full Bench of the
Kerala High Court also in the case of Moosa v. Sub Inspector of
Police3 held that the fact that the co-accused have secured
acquittal after trial cannot by itself be reckoned as a relevant
circumstance for invocation of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to
quash the proceedings as against the accused who has not faced
the trial. It is held that the judgment of acquittal of a co-accused
is not a relevant document for considering the prayer to quash the
(2003) 8 SCC 666
(2003) 12 SCC 449
2006 CriLJ 1922
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the accused who
has not faced the trial.
Therefore, there are no valid grounds for quash of the
criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner/A.2 in
C.C.No.502 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa.
Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Criminal
Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________________
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date: 04.02.2022
Ivd
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.472 of 2022
Date: 04-02-2022
Ivd
