Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11524 (AP)

CHALASANI PRASANA BHARAGAV v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

CRLP/3354/2025 · 2025-03-27

Harinath N

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010132892025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3354/2025 Between: Chalasani Prasana Bharagav ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BHARGAVA RAJU MANTHINA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No.3354 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arraigned as A.1 in Crime No.67 of 2025 of Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City, registered for the alleged offence under Sections 143(2), 144(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 on the strength of the complaint of the 2nd respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the premises and relies on a certificate issued by the A.P. Shops and Establishments, which shows that Turuka Ratna Kishore is representing Studio 9 International. The learned counsel also relies on the certificate of registration with the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises, also in the name of Studio 9 International, represented by Turuka Ratna Kishore. It is contended that the petitioner is not involved in the alleged offence. However, he has been implicated as A.1 in the present case. 4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that during the investigation, the police have come to know that the petitioner was instrumental in running the den. 3 5. Considering the nature of the allegations, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the investigation done by the police. 6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. 7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt.27.03.2025 BV