Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Batteti Ganesh Babu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 September, 2024
APHC010287792024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3368]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4640/2024
Between:
Sri Batteti Ganesh Babu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Pradesh and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. R SIVA SAI SWARUP
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A2, Section
528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (old Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.567 of 2018, on the file of the learned I
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam,
Visakhapatnam District, ( herein after referred to as „learned
Magistrate‟) registered for the offences punishable under Section
353 read with 34 IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act,
1988 (for short the „M.V.Act‟).
2. Heard Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing
respondent No.1/State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
order, dated 28.03.2018 of the learned Magistrate for taking
cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 353 read
with 34 IPC and Section 185 of the M.V.Act does not discloses
the application of mind to the material placed on record for taking
cognizance and the order of the learned Magistrate is not
sustainable in law, in the light of the judgment of the Hon‟ble
Apex Court in Lalan Kumar Singh and others vs. State of
Maharastra1.
4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition
and would submit that there are no grounds to interfere with the
order of the learned Magistrate.
5. In the light of the above rival contentions, the point for
consideration is:
"Whether the order, dated 28.03.2018 of the learned
Magistrate is sustainable in law?"
2022 SCC Online Sc 1383
6. POINT:
Undisputedly, the police laid charge sheet before the
learned Magistrate for the under Section 353 read with 34 IPC
and Section 185 of the M.V.Act against the petitioner herein/A2
and another accused arraying them as A1 and A2 respectively.
The impugned order, dated 28.03.2028 of the learned Magistrate
is as follows:
"Complaint is filed for the offence u/Sec.353 r/w
Sec.34 of IPC, Sec.185 of MV Act against the
accused.
Accused on bail.
Charge sheet is verified and found correct.
Submitted,
Superintendent.
Taken on file for the offence punishable
u/Sec.353 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, Sec.185 of MV Act
against the accused.
Issue notice to the accused.
Call on 25.09.2018."
7. A perusal of the said order, dated 28.03.2018 would make
it clear that the learned Magistrate did not apply mind and passed
routine order incorporating the provisions of law as mentioned in
the charge sheet. Therefore, it is not in accordance with the
directions of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Lalan Kumar Singh and
others vs. State of Maharastra.
8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that
the order, dated 28.03.2018 of the learned I Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam needs to be set aside
with a direction.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of with a
direction setting aside the impugned order, 28.03.2018 of the
learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Visakhapatnam, with a direction to the learned Magistrate to pass
order afresh as per the law, in view of the judgment of the Hon‟ble
Apex Court in Lalan Kumar Singh and others vs. State of
Maharastra, referred above.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
09.09.2024.
VNB
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4640 of 2024
Date: 09.09.2024
VNB
