APHC010123212021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3078 of 2022 Between: Alugula Lakshmaiah and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. K J V N PUNDAREEKAKSHUDU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed, by the Petitioners/A.7 and A.8, seeking to quash the Proceedings against them in Crime No.512 of 2019 on the file of Taluka Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code2 2. Heard Sri K.J.V.N.Pundareekakshudu, learned counsel for the Petitioners/A.7 and A.8 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent/State. Perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners herein worked as outsourcing staff at the relevant point of time and that whatever amount spent are supported by proper bills and vouchers and that the 1. For short ‘the Code’ 2. For short ‘ IPC’ 2 Executive Officer issued certificate certifying that the petitioners herein done their entrusted work. Further the Petitioners are falsely implicated in this case by arraying them as A.7 and A.8 and they have nothing to do with this case and that there are no ingredients attracting the offence lodged against the Petitioners. Learned counsel would submit that except bald and omnibus allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed against the Petitioners and that continuing criminal proceedings against them is mere abuse of process of law. 4. Learned counsel would further submit that the presence of the Petitioners may be dispensing with before the trial Court and the Criminal Petition may be disposed of by giving liberty to the Petitioners to raise such contentions before the trial Court in defence. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there is a verifiable material against the Petitioners and that after completion of investigation, Police have filed Charge Sheet against these Petitioners/A.7 and A.8 also. It is not a fit case for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners and prays for dismissal of the Criminal Petition. 6. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the contents of the Complaint, as rightly put by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, there is a verifiable material against the Petitioners, which requires full-fledged trial. Truth or otherwise of the facts of the case would reveal during trial. Whatever contentions raised in this Petition are matter of defence. It is stated that Charge Sheet is filed, the request of the Petitioners to dispense with their presence before the trial Court may be considered. 3 7. In that view, the Criminal Petition is disposed of and the Petitioners are at liberty to raise the present contentions before the trial Court in their defence. However, the presence of the Petitioners/A.7 and A.8 before the trial Court is dispensed with, except on the specific dates as directed by the trial Court. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No. 3078 of 2022 10.02.2025 Mjl /*