IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7498 OF 2019 Between: Thimmadi Sudhakar Reddy, S/o.T.Raghunatha Reddy, Aged 61 Occ. Advocate, R/o. H.No.12-13-705/10/A/102, Balaji Residency, Nagar, Tarnaka, Secunderabad-17. years, Gokul ...Petitioner/Accused No.18 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Through S.H.O. Y.V.Palem, High Court at Amaravathi Guntur District ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court to may be pleased to quash the C.C.No.12 of 2024 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pileru, Chittoor District U/s.188, 341, 143, 290 r/w 34 IPC, against the petitioner/Accused 18. (Prayer is amended as per the Court order dated 18.02.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in Crl.P.No.7498 of 2019) praying that in the 1/ I-A. NO: 1 OF ?niQ Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C circumstances stated in the Memorandum the High Court may be pleased C.C.No.12 of 2024 praying that in the of Grounds of Criminal Petition, to grant stay of all further proceedings in Magistrate, against the on the file of the Special Judicial First Class 188, 341, 143, 290 r/w 34 IPC, ■Pileru, Chittoor District U/s petitioner/Accused 18. Th,s Pern,on coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminai Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Mohan Rami Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: Public 7: / / 1 APHC010410362019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7498/2019 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Thimmadi Sudhakar Reddy, AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.K MOHAN RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/Accused No.18, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.12 of 2024 on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Pileru. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 20.02.2019 at about 12:00 noon, the complainant/Head Constable of Yerravaripalem Police Station Yerravaripalem bus stand and found leaders, who sat across the along with his colleague went a Dharna, conducted by YSRCP Mandal to main road, disrupting traffic and shouting anti government slogans. The Police appealed the protestors that at present Section 30 of Police Act in effect, prohibiting dharnas, rastharoko, rallies without prior permission. Despite the request of the police, dharna continued, hindering public movement. Therefore, he lodged was a complaint against the petitioner herein along with others and the Crime No.17 of 2019, same was registered as a case in the file of Yerravaripalem Police Station. After completion of the investigation, police filed charge on sheet, which was numbered as C.C No.12 of 2024 on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pileru, against the accused for the offense punishable under Sections 188, 341, 143, 290 r/w. 34 IPC. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No. 18 to quash the proceedings in C.C No.12 of 2024. 3. Heard. Perused the record. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on the date of incident, the petitioner was at his house which is at a distance of 5 Kilometers from the place of Dharna, and is no way involved in the said offence. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, instructions stated that the petitioner was also one of the participants in the said Dharna, as such his name was also included in the array of accused. It is further stafed that the case is coming up for examination of the accused. 5. on oral 6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner was not present at the place of incident and was present in his house, which is at a distance of 5 Km from the place of Dharna, there is no material to prove that at the time of Dharna the petitioner was in his house and not participated in the Dharna. 7. The material on record goes to show that there are specific accusations made against the petitioner herein. Truth or otherwise of the accusations has to be decided only during the course of trial. It is premature for this Court to conduct a roving enquiry into the disputed questions of fact in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. 8. Further, as the Trial Court is already proceeding with the trial by examining the LWs.1 to 7, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial at this stage. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, presence of petitioner/Accused No.18, before the trial Court is dispensed with, except on 4 those dates when the learned Magistrate feels the presence of petitioner/Accused No. 18 is necessary. Accordingly, with the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed 9. of. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- M PRABHAKARRAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR u //TRUE COPY// SOTION OFFICER To, 1. The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pileru, Chittoor District 2. The Station House Officer, Yerravaripalem Police Station, Chittoor District 3. One CC to Sri. K Mohan Rami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies Stu sree HIGH COURT DATED:24/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.7498 of 2019 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION