APHC010473672021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6965 OF 7n7i Ar -O' m 3 50 o 'S o Between: A Chandra Mouleswara Reddy, S/o. A.Ramachandra years, occ. advocate, R/o, H.No. 87/1285-6-15, somisetty nagar, near water tank, kurnool reddy, aged about 52 ...Petitioner/Accused No.7 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through SHO, Chinna Chowk Police Station, YSR Kadapa district, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravathi 2. Yerukala Neeraja, W/o. Byreddy Sreekanth Reddy, D.No. 1/311, S.T. Colony, YSR Kadapa city. aged 32 years, R/o. ...Respondents/Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for 528 of BNSS praying that in the records relating to the order passed in CrI.M.P. No. 2002 of 2017 in Cr.No. 191 of 2014 dt. 17-02-2020 the file of the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First class on kadapa and quash the as against the petitioner herein and to grant such other proceedings thereon relief or reliefs as this honourable court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2n?i Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of the orders passed in CrI.M.P.No. 2002 of 2017 in Cr.No. 191 of 2014 dt. 17-2-2020 Judicial Magistrate of First Ciass, Kadapa. in so far as the petitioner herein i concerned inciuding his appearance, pending disposai of the Criminal lA NO: 1 OF 2022 on the file of the II Addl. IS Petition. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstanees stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, High Court may be pleased to extend the interim stay orders passed i CRL[^.No.6965of2021 dated the in 09.12.2021. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of M/s. Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following Order: and of the Additional Public Kalangi Sumalatha, APHC010473672021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY .THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6965/2021 [3457] Between; A Chandra Mouleswara Reddy, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.J JANAKIRAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.KALANGI SUMALATHA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) II2II CRLP.No.6965 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N CRIMINAL PETITION No.6965 of 2021 ORDER: The petitioner is seeking quash of the order passed in Crl.MP.No.2002 of 2017 in Crime No.191 of 2014, dated 17.02.2020 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa. 2. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.7 for the alleged offence under Section 420, 498-A, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act and Section 3(1 )(x) of SC, ST (POA) Act. 3. The 2"^^ respondent has filed a complaint against her husband and other relatives and also roped in the petitioner as co-accused and arraigned the petitioner as accused No.7. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a complaint was filed by the 2 nd respondent alleging various offences against the petitioners. As seen from the complaint and the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is a relative of accused No.1 and that the petitioner along with other relatives came to the house of the 2'^'^ respondent and abused the family members of 2^^ respondent. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet and found no evidence against Accused i/t / f,.:. CRLP.No.6965 Of 2025 i Nos.7 to 12. As such, Accused Nos.7 to 12 were not charge ■t' sheeted. The 2"^* respondent filed a protest petition before the Court and the learned Magistrate had partly allowed the petition and has taken cognizance for offence under Section 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(1 )(x) of SC, ST (POA) Act against Accused Nos.7 to 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate and is not related to the Accused No.1. It is submitted that the petitioner got issued a legal notice to the police when the 2"'^ respondent lodged a complaint of man missing. It is submitted that the petitioner had only discharged his professional duty and never got involved in the family affairs of the 2"'^ respondent and the accused No.1. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate has without considering the material on record has passed an erroneous order duly taking cognizance of the offence under Section 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(1 )(x) of SC, ST (POA) Act against the accused 5. 6. 7. Nos.7 to 12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the 2'^'^ respondent and perused the material available on record. 8. UAH CRLP.No.6965 of 2025 9. The investigation of the police and the charge sheet filed does not disclose the involvement of the petitioner in commission of any of the alleged offences. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate and has extended legal services to the Accused No.1 on a professional basis. When the 2"^* respondent failed to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner is a relative of the Accused No.1. The only association of the petitioner with the 2"^' respondent is the professional relationship, whereby the petitioner rendered professional services to the petitioner on his request. Such professional association cannot be fastened with the criminal liability of the party for whom the petitioner rendered professional legal services. 10. The impugned order has simply considered the protest petition of the 2"^ respondent and the learned Magistrate has lost sight of the findings of the investigating officer. The sworn statements of third parties recorded by the learned Magistrate did not disclose the names of Accused No.7 to Accused No. 12. That apart no reasons are assigned as to how the petitioner has indulged in commission of the offence under Section 506 of IPC and Section 3(1 )(x) of SC, ST (POA) Act in absence of any specific evidence. This would only goes to show that the learned Magistrate has passing the Il&l CRLP.No.6965 of 2025 impugned order has not considered the material on record and simply relied on the protest petition filed by the respondent. 11. The petitioner is implicated in a false case for having addressed a legal notice dated 29.08.2011 on behalf of the Accused No.1 to the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Kadapa. In absence of any prima facie evidence or allegation against the petitioner, no purpose would be served in subjecting the petitioner to the rigmorale of trial. It is wastage of judicial time apart from causing unnecessary harassment to the petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate with seniority of about 34 years. 12. On these grounds this Court is inclined to allow the criminal petition. The impugned order in Crl.MP.No.2002 of 2017 in Crime No.191 of 2014, dated 17.02.2020 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa is hereby quashed , as a sequel Crime No.191 of 2014 is also hereby quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned. 13. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed. Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Station House Officer, Chinna Chowk Police Station, YSR Kadapa District. 3. One CC to Sri. J Janakirami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 1 ^ 4. One CC to M/s. Kalangi Sumalatha Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.[OUT] 6. Two CD Copies VNA HIGH COURT DATED:25/06/2025 ORDER CRLP No. 6965/2021 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION