Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bommareddy Subba Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 July, 2024
APHC010272532024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3368]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4472 of 2024
Between:
Bommareddy Subba Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following ORDER:
1) Heard Sri. Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner/Complainant and Sri. V. Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned
Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent.
2) The grievance of the Petitioner is that, the Petitioner filed a
complaint under Sections 190 and 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 ['Cr.P.C.'], before the learned Magistrate i.e., Principle Junior
Civil Judge - cum - XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,
Gannavaram, on 01.03.2024, and it was returned with certain
objections on 01.03.2024. The Complainant had complied with the
objections and re-presented the complaint on 11.03.2024. But the
learned Magistrate returned the complaint again on 11.03.2024 stating
that some of the objections are not complied with. Accordingly, the
complaint was re-presented on 18.03.2024 by complying with all the
objections, as instructed by the Court. But, again it was returned on
18.03.2024 observing as under:
"OBJECTIONS COMPLIED AND REPRESENTED
ON 18.03.2024.
1. It is submitted that the complainant in complying
with Apex court Judgment struck of the "religion"
Mentioned in the complaint.
2. With regard to the other objections complied with
by enclosing the documents No.12 & 13, the offence
committed by the accused is attracting the facts
mentioned in the above said 2 documents.
Hence, objections complied.
RETURNED DT: 18-03-2024.
Objection No.1, 2, 4 & 5 are complied holds good,
hence, returned time for 7 days."
3) The learned Magistrate did not state anything as to non-
compliance of other objections and the complaint is unnecessarily
returned causing inconvenience.
4) A perusal of the material available on record would show that,
the complaint was originally filed on 01.03.2024 under Sections 190
and 200 of Cr.P.C., and it was returned on the very same day with
objections Nos.1 to 9. Later, it was re-presented on 11.03.2024 stating
that objections were complied with and again it was returned on
11.03.2024 stating that objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 are holds
good, but it was returned. The complaint was again re-presented on
18.03.2024 and on the very same day, it was returned stating that
objection Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are complied holds good. Hence, returned.
The written endorsement does not speak anything that the
complainant did not comply with the other objections or the defects
pointed out by the Court.
5) In those circumstances, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, at
the admissions stage, directing the learned Magistrate to receive the
complaint, as per law, and proceed, accordingly, forthwith.
6) The Petitioner/Complainant is permitted to re-present the
complaint in ten [10] days, from the date of receipt of this Order.
7) As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
Date: 04.07.2024 / SM
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4472 of 2024
Date: 04.07.2024
SM
