APHC010026142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 594/2025 Between: Palamangalam Visalakshi ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. S PRASANTH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. CHAMARTHY LEELA SRINNIVASA VARMA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: CRLP.No.594 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N CRIMINAL PETITION No.594 of 2025 O R D E R : The petitioner is seeking quash of SC.No.264 of 2019 on the file of X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati. The petitioner is facing trial for the alleged offence under Section 120- B, 302 read with 34 of IPC. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.6 and that there is no material evidence to frame the petitioner as co-accused. It is submitted that the petitioner is falsely implicated as an afterthought of LW.10 and LW.11. As per their statements the petitioner is said to have handed over chilli powder along with two knives to the accused for eliminating the deceased. 3. It is also submitted that as per the postmortem report also there is no reference to the use of chilli powder. It is also submitted that the treating doctor also does not specifically state about the presence of chilli powder over the body of the deceased. It is submitted that the petitioner is a women and has absolutely no role in commission of the alleged offence that she is the wife of Accused No.3. It is also submitted that the entire case of CRLP.No.594 of 2025 prosecution is precariously placed on the statements of LWs.10 and 11 who are alleged to have over heard the statements of accused on the date of incident at about 06.30PM. It is also submitted that LW.6 in the Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement had stated that the incident took place on 28.10.2018 at about 06.10PM. IN such circumstances it is evidently clear that the incident took place prior in point of time to the conspiracy. As such, a false theory is introduced that the petitioner supplied chilli powder to A1 and A2. 4. It is further submitted that the statement of LW.12 does not disclose the issue of chilli powder. It is further submitted that the police in the investigation have not seized or collected the chilli powder from the scene of offence. As such, the theory developed of the petitioner handing over chilli powder to accused Nos.1 and 2 is only to falsely implicate the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the accused Nos.3 to 6 have already filed Crl.MP.No.60 of 2022 seeking discharge and the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati dismissed their petition. He further submits that the petitioner has also taken similar grounds as CRLP.No.594 of 2025 raised in the discharge petition before this Court in the present criminal petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. Perused the material on record. 7. The statements of LW.10 and LW.12 have specifically stated certain allegations against the petitioner with regard to handing over of two knives. The other grounds for quashing the case raised by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated by this Court at this stage. 8. The involvement or otherwise of the petitioner would have to be considered by the trial Court and the witnesses would have to testify their statements and withstand the scrutiny of cross- examination for proving the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. 9. This Court is of the considered opinion that there are several questions of fact which can only be ascertained during the course of trial. It is left open for the petitioner to raise all these grounds before the Trial Court when the matter is taken up for trial. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner that there are several loopholes in the investigation and that the CRLP.No.594 of 2025 petitioner is a women and is falsely implicated without her involvement. This Court is inclined to dispose off the petition by dispensing with the presence of the petitioner except for the dates on which the petitioner’s presence is required for the purpose of trial. All contentions raised in the quash petition would have to be raised before the trial Court when the matter is taken up for trial. 10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed off. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 25.06.2025 KGM CRLP.No.594 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N CRIMINAL PETITION No.594 of 2025 Dated 25.06.2025 KGM