Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Khagga Lakshmi Venkata Ramana vs The Station House Officer on 2 May, 2023
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI
Criminal Petition No.1791 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC is filed by the
petitioner with a prayer to quash the order, dated 03.03.2023,
passed in Crl.M.P.No.88 of 2023 in C.C.No.3726 of 2019 on the file
of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Additional Mahila Magistrate,
Vijayawada.
2. The prosecution filed Crl.M.P.No.88 of 2023 under Section 242
(3) Cr.P.C to receive a document, viz., a newspaper containing an
item about the presence of accused at Vijayawada as on the date of
commission of the offence. The respondent/accused filed counter
and opposed the petition stating that the question of filing an
application for receiving the document at a belated stage cannot be
accepted.
3. After hearing both sides, the learned Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate dismissed the petition observing that there is no whisper
about the document at any time before filing of this petition and
further that the accused also did not raise the issue of not being
present in the evidence, and therefore, the matter is posted for
BSB, J
Crl. Petition No.1791 of 2023
judgment and hence, the petition is belated and is nothing but gross
abuse of process of law, and accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
4. Having been aggrieved by the order, the de facto complainant
filed this criminal petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no fair
opportunity was given to the prosecution to lead further evidence to
show that the accused was available in the town as on the date of
commission of offence, as reported in the newspaper. He further
submitted that the Presiding Officer in charge of the Court hurriedly
disposed of the petition without providing a fair opportunity to the
petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/accused opposed the
petition and submitted that the petition has been rightly dismissed
by the learned Magistrate. He further submitted that at the fag-end
of trial and when the matter is posted for judgment, petition under
Section 242 (3) CrPC cannot be accepted.
8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also supported the order
impugned and further prayed to pass appropriate orders.
9. Perused the record.
BSB, J
Crl. Petition No.1791 of 2023
10. The offences alleged are Section 354-A, 509 and 385 IPC.
Since the learned Magistrate has given valid reasons for not allowing
the petition and the document proposed to be produced in evidence
is also a newspaper item which has weak type of evidentiary value,
this Court does not see any ground or reason to interfere with the
order impugned in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI, J
02.05.2023
RAR
