K.Rama Subbaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1509 AP

            HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
                     MAIN CASE No.Crl.P.No.7140 of 2022
                                      PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.No     DATE                                                                      Office
                                                  ORDER

Note 15.03.2023 RRR, J

Rev.I.A.(SR).No.14937 of 2023

The objection of the Registry that the provision of law under which such a petition is maintainable, is answered by taking the view that such a petition would be maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, Registry is directed to number the application.

_________ RRR, J Rev.I.A.No.1 of 2023

The applicant herein is the de facto complainant in C.C.No.380 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dhone, Kurnool, District (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant").

The complainant had approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dhone, Kurnool District, for registering a complaint against the sole accused, by way of C.C.No.380 of 2018, under Section 323, 342, 177 IPC. The Magistrate took cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and

342 IPC only.

The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said cognizance, had approached this Court by way of Crl.P.No.7345 of 2018 for quashing C.C.No.380 of 2018. While the said petition was pending, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of Crl.P.No.7140 of 2022 for quashing C.C.No.380 of 2018. In this petition, notice was sent to the complainant, who refused to receive the same. This Court had deemed that service had been completed on the complainant and heard the matter on merits. This Court had allowed the petition by an order dated 02.12.2022 quashing C.C.No.380 of 2018.

The complainant, after the aforesaid order had been passed, approached this Court by way of the present application contending that the filing of Crl.P.No.7140 of 2022, while the earlier Crl.P.No.7345 of 2018 was pending, would be an abuse of process of this court and sought recall of the said order dated 02.12.2022.

The record of this Court shows that Crl.P.No.7345 of 2018 filed for the very same relief is still pending before this Court. In the circumstances, it must be held that Crl.P.No.7140 of 2022 would be an abuse of process of this Court and the order allowing the petition requires to be recalled.

Sri Kochiri Raja Sekhar, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner contends that the present application is not maintainable as it would amount to a review which is barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C., and as such, the application is not maintainable.

Sri Ravindra Kumar Ramaraju, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, relying upon the judgment of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in State of A.P. vs. Hymad Pasha1, contends that the present application is maintainable.

In the case before the Division Bench two appeals had been filed against the same judgment of the trial Court. The first appeal was dismissed and subsequently, the second appeal was heard and allowed as the earlier disposal of the first appeal had not been brought to the notice of the Court. In such circumstances, the question of whether the accused persons in the criminal appeals are to be treated as acquitted or whether their conviction is upheld had to be considered.

The Division Bench had taken the view that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can be exercised for the following purposes, viz - 1) to make the orders, as may be necessary, to give effect to any order passed by this Court under this Code; 2) to prevent the abuse of process of any

2009 (1) ALT (CRI.) 318 (D.B.)

Court; 3) to secure the ends of justice.

The Division Bench, on this basis, had held that all the three conditions were fulfilled in the case before the Division Bench and had recalled the order passed in the second appeal and upheld the conviction of the accused in view of the orders passed in the first appeal.

In the appeal filed against this order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of the Division Bench, in its judgment reported as Hymad Pasha vs. State of A.P.,2.

In view of the aforesaid judgments and in view of the fact that the filing of the second petition would be an abuse of the process of this Court, which requires to be prevented, the order of this Court dated 02.12.2022 in Crl.P.No.7140 of 2022 is recalled and the review application is allowed.

_________ RRR, J Crl.P.No.7140 of 2022

Criminal Petition is dismissed. (Vide separate order) _________ RRR, J Js.

(2015) 15 SCC 651