1 APHC010704002022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10319/2022 Between: JuttigaRamanjaneyulu @ JuthukaRamanjaneyulu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. PETLURI NAGA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10319/2022 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against him in Crime No. 309 of 2022 of Pedavegi Police Station, Eluru District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 382 r/w 511, 506 of IPC. 2. Heard Sri P. Haritha, learned Counsel representing on behalf of Sri P. Nagaraju, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a false case has been lodged against the petitioner and in fact, the petitioner has videographed the alleged incident. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has never assaulted the respondent No.2 who is a Public Servant while discharging his duties. In fact, the incident took place otherwise. Learned Counsel would submit that continuing Criminal Proceedings against the petitioner is mere abuse of process of law. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner has approached the Court at Crime stage and obtained stay. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the Police could not get any opportunity to analyse the alleged videographs and the investigation is not 3 completed because of the stay. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally would submit that the petition may be disposed of giving opportunity to the Police to complete the investigation by taking into consideration the alleged videographs if any available from the Accused. 5. Considering the submissions made, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, because of stay, there is no progress in the investigation. However, on the face of it, Section 382 of IPC has no application to the facts of the present case. 7. In that view, the petition is disposed of giving liberty to the Police to proceed with the investigation and complete the investigation taking into consideration the videographs if any, available with the accused, by issuingnotice under Section 41A Cr.P.C to the petitioner. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 04.02.2025 UPS 4 101 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.10319 of 2022 Dt.04.02.2025 UPS