Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gogineni Ramanjaneyulu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 March, 2023
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
***
Crl.P.No.5099 of 2022
Between:
Gogineni Ramanjaneyulu,
S/o. Late Sri G. Subba Rao,
Hindu, aged 58 years,
R/o. Flat No.404, Yaganti Parkwood Apartment,
12th Lane, Sriramnagar, Gorantla, Guntur,
Guntur District.
... Petitioner
And
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
through Station House Officer/ Senior Executive Officer,
C.I.D. Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh., Amaravati.
2. Smt. Ponnada Nagamani, W/o. P. Naga Raju,
Hindu, aged 42 years, R/o. A.G.K. Peta,
Near Janda Chettu, Nizampatnam Village,
Bapatla District,now residing at Flat No.C1,
J.K. Paradise,Kalavari Street, I.L.T.D., Colony,
Chirala, Bapatla District.
... Respondents
Date of Judgment pronounced on : 24-03-2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No
to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No
Of the Judgment?
2
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
+ Crl.P.No.5099 of 2022
% Dated: 24-03-2023
Gogineni Ramanjaneyulu,
S/o. Late Sri G. Subba Rao,
Hindu, aged 58 years,
R/o. Flat No.404, Yaganti Parkwood Apartment,
12th Lane, Sriramnagar, Gorantla, Guntur,
Guntur District.
... Petitioner
And
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
through Station House Officer/ Senior Executive Officer,
C.I.D. Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh., Amaravati.
2. Smt. Ponnada Nagamani, W/o. P. Naga Raju,
Hindu, aged 42 years, R/o. A.G.K. Peta,
Near Janda Chettu, Nizampatnam Village,
Bapatla District, now residing at Flat No.C1,
J.K. Paradise,Kalavari Street, I.L.T.D., Colony,
Chirala, Bapatla District.
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : B. Adi Narayana Rao, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri
M.Chalapathi Rao.
^Counsel for Respondents : Smt. Y.L.Siva Kalapana Reddy, Special
Public Prosecutor
<GIST :
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
1. (2001) 6 SCC 181
2. (1979) 2 SCC 322
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5099 of 2022
ORDER:
The petitioner is accused No.4 in C.C.No.9 of 2022 in the Court of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada for offences under Sections 420, 120(B) r/w 34 of I.P.C and Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The matter was heard earlier and reserved for orders on 09.11.2022. As notices were not served on respondent No.2 and no opportunity of hearing was given to respondent No.2, the matter was reopened and notices were directed to be served on respondent No.2. Proof of service on respondent No.2 was filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner vide U.S.R.No.7374 of 2023 on 27.01.2023. The matter was posted for hearing on 01.02.2023, 15.02.2023 and 28.02.2023. As there was no representation on behalf of the respondent No.2, the matter was again reserved for orders.
3. A charge sheet has been filed against 4 persons. However, it was recorded in the charge sheet, that accused No.1 has passed away.
4. The brief background required for a proper adjudication of this petition is as follows: 4
5. The de facto complainant approached the Superintendent of Police, Guntur, in the year 2016, with a complaint that accused Nos.1 to 3, after receiving huge amounts of money from her, had cheated her and had not conveyed the plot shown to her in the lay out behind Nagarjuna University, that is alleged to have been made by one Rainbow Ventures in which accused Nos.1 to 3 were passing themselves of as the Managing Director and Directors.
6. This complaint was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban to the petitioner herein, who was then working as the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mangalagiri, for further enquiry. The petitioner after examining the issue and conducting necessary enquiry had submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police on 16.11.2017 stating that the dispute between the parties was a civil dispute and that respondent No.2 had been advised to approach the civil Court. Subsequently, respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner herein before the Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D with the allegation that the petitioner had conducted mediation between respondent No.2 on one hand and accused Nos.1 to 3 on the other hand and in that process had done injustice to the 2nd respondent. The Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D had then appointed one CH. Vijaya Bhaskar Rao, 5 who was the Inspector of Police, C.I.D Regional Office, Guntur to enquire into the matter. After conducting a comprehensive enquiry, including recording the statements of the concerned persons, the Enquiry Officer had submitted a report dated 25.01.2018 stating that the disputes are civil in nature and that the allegations made against the petitioner are baseless.
7. Respondent No.2 had then filed a formal complaint on 20.10.2018 before the Peda Kakani Police Station which was registered as Crime No.299 of 2018 and the same is pending investigation. It may also be noted that the said complaint was given only against accused Nos.1 to 3 and the role of the petitioner herein was not set out in the complaint. While this case was under investigation, respondent No.2 filed another complaint on 27.01.2020 before the Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D, Mangalagiri, who directed registration of a case and for assigning the investigation to Sri CH. Vijaya Bhaskar Rao, who had conducted the earlier enquiry against the petitioner. A fresh case was registered as Crime No.2 of 2020 on 27.01.2020 in the C.I.D Police Station and investigation was initiated. A preliminary enquiry report was submitted after investigation, and the same was filed as a charge sheet before the trial Court which took cognizance of the charge sheet as C.C.No.9 of 2022. It may be noted that, the petitioner was not 6 arrayed as an accused initially and the petitioner was included as the 4th accused by filing an alteration memo.
8. The petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Criminal Petition, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.9 of 2022 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada.
9. Sri B. Adi Narayana Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following grounds for quashing the case before the trial Court:
i) The petitioner is charged with offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as the Prevention of the Corruption Act. The offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be investigated by the C.I.D Department and as such the entire investigation and the filing of the charge sheet before the ACB Court is without jurisdiction and would have to be quashed;
ii) Sanction of the Government for prosecuting the petitioner was obtained by G.O.Ms.No.31 dated 19.03.2021. The sanction obtained under these orders was the sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Section 7 19(1)(B) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 only. No sanction was given under Sections 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and as such, the investigation and the pendency of C.C.No.9 of 2022 is without necessary sanction and would have to be quashed;
iii) The petitioner was not initially arrayed as an accused in Crime No.2 of 2020. He was added as an accused, by way of a memo dated 20.02.2020 filed before the trial Court. This fact has significance as the registration of Crime No.2 of 2020 is clearly barred on account of the pending investigation in Crime No.299 of 2018 before the Peda Kakani Police Station. In view of the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T.Antony vs. State of Kerala reported1, a second complaint on the same facts and offences is not maintainable and the second complaint can at best be treated as a statement made under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, the investigation in C.C.No.2 of 2020 and the consequential C.C.No.9 of 2022 would have to fall as they are not maintainable; 1 (2001) 6 SCC 181 8
iv) The entire investigation is filled with inconsistencies and the Investigating Officer is guilty of suppression of facts as there is no mention about the earlier complaints and the examination of the petitioner in the earlier complaints by the very same Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that the petitioner was being victimized on account of the fact that he had been Investigating Officer in certain politically sensitive cases filed against some of the persons in authority in the present Government.
v) The Charge sheet does not reveal any undue benefit or advantage being given to the petitioner, to attract the provisions of Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
10. Smt. Y. L. Siva Kalpana Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, disputed the aforesaid submissions by raising the following contentions:
i) The provisions of Section 7((a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are clearly attracted as the statement of L.W.4 clearly mentions that the petitioner had received illegal gratification of Rs.3 lakhs;
ii) The Investigating Officer, who is an officer in the C.I.D, would have jurisdiction as Section 17 (c) only 9 requires that an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and above can investigate any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Investigating Officer in the present case is of the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police;
iii) „Police Station‟, as defined under Section 2(s) of Criminal Procedure Code, clearly includes the C.I.D Police Station which has jurisdiction over the entire State of Andhra Pradesh and as such, the complaint can be registered under Section 154 of Cr. P. C by the C.I.D Police Station and further investigation is permissible;
iv) The first complaint which was numbered as Crime No.299 of 2018 by the Peda Kakani Police Station did not include the petitioner herein while it was found that the petitioner needed to be included as an accused in the second complaint. As such, it cannot be said that the investigation in Crime No.2 of 2020 would be barred by the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T.Antony vs. State of Kerala;
v) There is no necessity to obtain permission under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act as 10 the said provisions came into effect only by way of an amendment on 26.07.2018 and the said requirement would not apply to offences which have been committed prior to 26.07.2018. As the complaint relates to an offence prior to 26.07.2018, no sanction under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is required for investigating Crime No.2 of 2020.
Consideration of the Court:
The above contentions give rise to the following issues before this Court.
1) Whether necessary sanctions for prosecuting the petitioner have been obtained?
2) Whether the investigating officer, who had investigated the case, is competent to conduct such investigation?
3) Whether Crime No.299 of 2018 is a bar for investigation in Crime No.2 of 2020, as laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T.Antony vs. State of Kerala reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181?
4) Whether a case under section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has been made out against the petitioner?11
11. ISSUE NO.1: "Whether necessary sanctions for prosecuting the petitioner have been obtained"?
Sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was obtained from the Government, by way of G.O.Ms.No.31 dated 19.03.2021. Under this order, sanction was obtained in relation to Section 19(1)(B) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. No sanction was obtained under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner contends that sanction under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is mandatory and the prosecution against the petitioner would have to fail on account of the said sanction not being obtained. The case of the prosecution is that such sanction is not necessary as Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act came into effect only by 26.07.2018 and such sanction is not necessary for offences which have been committed prior to 26.07.2018.
Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act reads as follows:
17A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties.-- No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval-- 12
(a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed:
Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person:
Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month.
12. Sanction, under this provision, is not necessary for every prosecution of a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This sanction is restricted to offences relatable to a recommendation made by the public servant or a decision taken by such public servant. In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner is not in relation to any recommendation made by him or on any decision taken by him. The complaint against the petitioner is that the petitioner, by misusing his position, had coerced the de facto complainant into giving up all 13 her documents in relation to the plot in question in return for cheques and promissory notes which were invalid. The investigation and prosecution against the petitioner is clearly not in relation to any recommendation made by the petitioner or decision taken by the petitioner in discharge of his official functions.
13. The provisions of Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act are not applicable to the present case and it would not be necessary to go into the question of whether the said provision is prospective or retrospective. Even otherwise, the said provision can operate prospectively only and no sanction need be taken, in the present case, either under section 19 or section 17-A of the Prevention of corruption Act, in view of the judgement of the erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, in its judgment dated 16.12.2018 in Criminal Petition No. 9044 of 2018 (Katti Naga Seshanna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh) and the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana in Pilli Sambasiva Rao VS. State of Telangana (MANU/TL/1427/2022)
14. ISSUE NO.2: "Whether the investigating officer, who had investigated the case, is competent to conduct such investigation?14
Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act enumerates the persons who are authorized to investigate any of the offences, punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 17(c), which is applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh, stipulates that investigation of any offence should not be carried out by a police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or a Police Officer of equivalent rank. The investigating officer in the present case, is a Deputy Superintendant of Police and as such, would be competent to investigate the offences alleged against the petitioner. Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act mandates that offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be tried only by Special Judges appointed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The cognizance of the charge sheet, filed by the investigating officer, has been taken by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases who is appointed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As such, the case can be tried by the trial Judge before whom the case is pending today. The petitioner has not pointed out any provision of law which requires the investigation of the offences, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, to be undertaken only by the Anti Corruption Bureau.
15
15. A subsidiary argument has also been raised that the investigation in the case could not have been carried out by the Deputy Superintendant of Police, C.I.D as the said officer would not have jurisdiction to investigate such cases. Section 2(s) of the Criminal Procedure Code defines „Police Station‟ as ---
"police station" means any post or place declared generally or specially by the State Government, to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf;
16. The C.I.D Police Station at Mangalagiri has been declared as a police station having jurisdiction over the entire State. The investigating officer, who is part of this police station would, consequently, have jurisdiction to investigate into the case.
17. ISSUE NO.3: "Whether Crime No.299 of 2018 is a bar for investigation in Crime No.2 of 2020, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T.Antony vs. State of Kerala reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181"?
In the case of T.T.Antony vs. State of Kerala reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, First Information Reports had been lodged in relation to two incidents of police firing in Kannur District of Kerala. A commission of enquiry had also enquired into the circumstances in which the police firing had occurred and had recommended action against various officials including Sri 16 T.T.Antony who was the Executive Magistrate in the area. A subsequent F.I.R had been filed on the basis of the recommendations of the commission of enquiry. It may also be noted that the first F.I.Rs had already been closed by then. Sri T.T. Antony had challenged the filing of the third F.I.R on the ground that the provisions of Cr.P.C do not permit multiple F.I.Rs to be filed in relation to the same set of facts. This contention of Sri T.T. Antony was accepted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the following words:
19. The scheme of the Cr.P.C. is that an officer in charge of a Police Station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of entry of the First Information Report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on the basis of evidence collected he has to form opinion under Section 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forward his report to the concerned Magistrate under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. However, even after filing such a report if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh FIR, he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court, and where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports; this is the import of sub-
section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C.
20. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156,157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of Cr.P.C. only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. Thus there can be no second F.I.R. and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence 17 or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the F.I.R. in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a Police Station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.
35. For the aforementioned reasons, the registration of the second FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of the letter of the Director General of Police as Crime No.268/97 of Kuthuparamba Police Station is not valid and consequently the investigation made pursuant thereto is of no legal consequence, they are accordingly quashed. We hasten to add that this does not preclude the investigating agency from seeking leave of the Court in Crime No.353/94 and Crime No.354/94 for making further investigations and filing a further report or reports under Section173(8) of Cr.P.C. before the competent Magistrate in the said cases. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court under challenge insofar as it relates to quashing of Crime No. 268/97 of Kuthuparamba Police Station against the ASP (R.A.Chandrasekhar); in all other aspects the impugned judgment of the High Court shall stand set aside.
18. While laying down the aforesaid principle of law, relating to the restriction on filing of multiple F.I.Rs, the view of an earlier decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal Narang vs. State (Delhi Admn)2 was also noticed. In this case, certain valuable ancient pillars had been seized by the police 2 (1979) 2 SCC 322 18 and produced before a Magistrate. An application was filed by a person claiming to be an Archaeologist, seeking custody of the pillars to make an in-depth study of the pillars. This application was allowed by the Magistrate and after some time the pillars were returned. Subsequently it came to light that the said archaeologist had got replicas of the pillars made and had submitted the said replicas to the Court while retaining the originals. An F.I.R had been filed against the said archaeologist and the magistrate who had assisted the archaeologist in obtaining the pillars, under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C read with Section 120-B of I.P.C. Initially a charge sheet was filed in relation to this case and later the accused were discharged as the Public Prosecutor sought withdrawal of the case.
19. In a parallel development, the original pillars were found in London and a fresh F.I.R was registered under Section 120-B r/w Section 411 of I.P.C and Section 25(1) of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 against three brothers. It may be noted that the persons arrayed as accused in the first F.I.R were not included as accused in the second F.I.R or subsequent proceedings. The brothers then filed an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings on the ground that there cannot be two F.I.Rs and two charge sheets in relation to the same subject matter. The Hon‟ble Supreme 19 Court, on appeal, after noticing the facts in the case had held that though two F.I.Rs cannot be filed in relation to same set of facts, it would still be permissible for two F.I.Rs to be filed if the basic charges in the two F.I.Rs relate to two separate conspiracies or to a case where the first F.I.R relates to smaller conspiracy and the second F.I.R relates to a larger conspiracy.
20. A comprehensive reading of the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in T.T.Antony vs State of Kerala reveals that while two F.I.Rs on the same set of facts are clearly not permissible, it is possible for two F.I.Rs to be filed where the facts are not identical and where they relate to two sets of offences including the case of a smaller conspiracy in the first round and a larger conspiracy in the second round.
21. The touch stone for going into this question would be the observation of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in T.T.Antony vs State of Kerala (para 21) which reads as follows:
"It follows that if the gravamen of the charges in the two FIRs _ the first and the second - is in truth and substance of the same, registering the second FIR and making fresh investigation and forwarding report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C will be irregular and the court cannot take cognizance of the same."20
22. Coming back to the present case, the facts that need to be ascertained is whether the gravamen of charges in the two F.I.Rs are, in truth and substance, the same.
23. The allegations in the first F.I.R in Crime No.299 of 2018 is that accused Nos.1 to 3 had cheated the de facto complainant by taking her money under the false promise of giving her a plot of land even though the said plot of land was not available.
24. The complaint in Crime No.2 of 2020 is that the same accused Nos.1 to 3 had cheated the de facto complainant by taking her money under the false promise of giving her a plot of land even though the said plot of land was not available. In addition to this, the de facto complainant added a new dimension i.e., the complaint against the petitioner herein on the ground that the petitioner had, misusing his official position, had made the de facto complainant to give up her documents, given by accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.299 of 2018 in return for promissory notes and cheques which were invalid.
25. In the normal course, there could be a view that this would be a case of a smaller and larger conspiracy which would fall within the ambit of the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal Narang vs. State (Delhi Admn). However, 21 Crime No. 2 of 2020, was registered only against the accused in crime No. 299 of 2018. Such a second F.I.R. is clearly barred in view of the judgement in T.T.Antony vs State of Kerala. Since the very registration of the F.I.R. in crime no. 2 of 2020 is impermissible, the further investigation and inclusion of the petitioner as accused No.4 has to be set aside.
26. Another aspect of the matter that needs to be noticed, by this Court, is the suppression of the earlier proceedings by both the de facto complainant and the Investigating Officer. The de facto complainant, in crime No. 299 0f 2018, suppressed the earlier complaint submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur and the enquiry conducted by the petitioner. The de facto complainant again suppressed the fact of Crime No.299 of 2018 when she filed Crime No.2 of 2020. Similarly, the Investigating Officer in Crime No.2 of 2020 had suppressed the fact that he had conducted an enquiry into the conduct of the petitioner, in relation to the very same allegations made by the complainant in Crime No.2 of 2020 and had given a clean chit to the petitioner earlier.
27. The suppression of the enquiry conducted earlier by the Investigating Officer is clearly in bad faith and raises any 22 amount of doubt on the question of whether the investigation was an objective and impartial investigation.
28. For the aforesaid reasons, Crime No.2 of 2020 and the consequential C.C.No.9 of 2020 on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool is quashed against the petitioner. However, this would not preclude investigation, into the conduct of the petitioner, in Crime No.299 of 2018.
29. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 24.03.2023 RJS 23 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Crl.P.No.5099 of 2022 Date : 24.03.2023 RJS 24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI *** Crl.P.No.5099 of 2022 Between:
Gogineni Ramanjaneyulu, S/o. Late Sri G. Subba Rao, Hindu, aged 58 years, R/o. Flat No.404, Yaganti Parkwood Apartment, 12th Lane, Sriramnagar, Gorantla, Guntur, Guntur District.
... Petitioner And $ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Station House Officer/ Senior Executive Officer, C.I.D. Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh., Amaravati.
2. Smt. Ponnada Nagamani, W/o. P. Naga Raju, Hindu, aged 42 years, R/o. A.G.K. Peta, Near Janda Chettu, Nizampatnam Village, Bapatla District,now residing at Flat No.C1, J.K. Paradise,Kalavari Street, I.L.T.D., Colony, Chirala, Bapatla District.
... Respondents Date of Judgment pronounced on : 24-03-2023 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No Of the Judgment?
25*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI * HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO + Crl.P.No.5099 of 2022 % Dated: 24-03-2023 Gogineni Ramanjaneyulu, S/o. Late Sri G. Subba Rao, Hindu, aged 58 years, R/o. Flat No.404, Yaganti Parkwood Apartment, 12th Lane, Sriramnagar, Gorantla, Guntur, Guntur District.
... Petitioner And $ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Station House Officer/ Senior Executive Officer, C.I.D. Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh., Amaravati.
2. Smt. Ponnada Nagamani, W/o. P. Naga Raju, Hindu, aged 42 years, R/o. A.G.K. Peta, Near Janda Chettu, Nizampatnam Village, Bapatla District, now residing at Flat No.C1, J.K. Paradise,Kalavari Street, I.L.T.D., Colony, Chirala, Bapatla District.
... Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner : B. Adi Narayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M.Chalapathi Rao.
^Counsel for Respondents : Smt. Y.L.Siva Kalapana Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor <GIST :
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
1. (2001) 6 SCC 181
2.
(1979) 2 SCC 322