APHC010713142022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10442/2022 Between: 1. SRI OBILLANENI SURI BABU, (A1) S/O LATE SATYANARAYANA, 49 YEARS, OC-KAMMA, AGRICULTURE, ANNAPANENIVARIGUDEM VILLAGE, LINGAPALEM MANDAL. 2. OBILLANENI VENKANNA BABU, (A2) S/O LATE SATYANARAYANA, 47 YEARS, OC-KAMMA POULTRY FORM BUSINESS/ ANNAPANENIVARIGUDEM VILLAGE, LINGAPALEM MANDAL. 3. OBILANENI SATYA SAI BABU, (A3) (DIED) 4. KARLAPUDI RAMA RAO, (A4) S/O PARISUDDAM, 31 YEARS, SC- MALA, AGRICULTURE, MPTC, ANNAPANENIVARIGUDEM VILLAGE, LINGAPALEM MANDAL. 5. RACHAPROLU RAMA MOHANA RAO, , (A5) S/O LATE RAMA RAO, 26 YEARS, SC-MALA, AGRICULTURE, ANNAPANENIVARIGUDEM VILLAGE, LINGAPALEM MANDAL. 6. RACHAPROLU KUMARI, (A6) (DIED) ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. 2. RACHAPROLU RAMANA, , (DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT) W/O VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, FEMALE, AGED 30 YEARS, SC- MALA, ANNAPANENIVARIGUDEM, LINGAPALEM MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. C VENKAIAH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. M.R.K. CHAKRAVARTHY The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the Petitioners/Accused, to quash the docket 2 order dated 21.12.2022 in Crl.M.P.S.R.No.2306 of 2022 and consequently to direct the Special Judge under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru to take the said petition in SCSTSC No.55 of 2017 on file. 2. Heard Sri Ch.Venkaiah, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1 /State. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the instant petition has been filed impugning the office objection which was taken by the Court of Special Judge under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru on the petition filed by the Petitioners/Accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel would further submit that the office has taken an objection without registering the petition. It is submitted that the documents which were sought in Crl.M.P.S.R.No.2306 of 2022 are very much essential to probablise the defence of the Petitioners in SCSTSC No.55 of 2017. Learned counsel would further submit that the objection taken by the office is not sustainable and there may be a direction to the learned trial Judge to entertain the petition and pass appropriate orders. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit the petition has been filed at a premature stage. Office has taken some objection to entertain the petition filed by the Petitioners and the Petitioners instead of resubmitting the same by complying with the objection, chose to file the present petition 3 and obtained interim stay. Learned counsel would further submit that, because of the stay, the proceedings are stalled before the trial Court and the main case is coming up for defence evidence. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2, the Petitioners filed the present petition at a premature stage without pursuing the matter before the trial Court. As can be seen from the record, the Petitioners have filed a petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C with a prayer to send the entire record in Crime No.47 of 2017 of Dharmajigudem Police Station. The office of the trial Court had taken an objection as to “How this petition is maintainable at this stage, and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition”. In such circumstances, the Petitioners should have pursued the matter before the trial Court, but not by way of filing this petition before this Court. 7. In that view, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. However, the Petitioners are at liberty to work out their remedy before the trial Court. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:05.02.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.10442 of 2022 Dt.05.02.2025 Dinesh