APHC010095832024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1192/2024 Between: 1. KORITALA SESHAGIRI RAO, S/O. GOPALA RAO, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. FLAT NO.208, KNR CASTLE APARTMENT, CHENCHUPET, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P 522202. 2. YADAPALLI BHOGENDRA PRASAD,, S/O. VENKATRAMAIAH, AGED 69 YEARS, OCC RETIRED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH, R/O. FLAT NO.101, KNR CASTLE APARMENT, CHENCHUPET, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P 3. GOGINENI RAMESH BABU @ RAMESH,, S/O. PRAKASA RAO, AGED 61 YEARS, OCC. EX KNR CASTLE APARTMENT, CHENCHUPET, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P-522202. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2. VANGA HIMA BINDHU, W/O. SRINIVASA REDDY, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. FLAT NO. 402, K.N.R CASTLE APARTMENT, CHENCHUPETA, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1192/2024 KORITALA SESHAGIRI RAO, S/O. GOPALA RAO, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. FLAT NO.208, KNR CASTLE APARTMENT, CHENCHUPET, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P YADAPALLI BHOGENDRA PRASAD,, S/O. VENKATRAMAIAH, AGED RETIRED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH, R/O. FLAT NO.101, KNR CASTLE APARMENT, CHENCHUPET, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P-522202. GOGINENI RAMESH BABU @ RAMESH,, S/O. PRAKASA RAO, AGED 61 YEARS, OCC. EX-SERVICE MAN, R/O. FLAT NO. 403, CASTLE APARTMENT, CHENCHUPET, TENALI, GUNTUR 522202. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT VANGA HIMA BINDHU, W/O. SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED 41 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. FLAT NO. 402, K.N.R CASTLE APARTMENT, CHENCHUPETA, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P-522202. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): HN, J Crl.P.No.1192_2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N KORITALA SESHAGIRI RAO, S/O. GOPALA RAO, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. FLAT NO.208, KNR CASTLE APARTMENT, CHENCHUPET, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P- YADAPALLI BHOGENDRA PRASAD,, S/O. VENKATRAMAIAH, AGED RETIRED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH, R/O. FLAT NO.101, KNR CASTLE APARMENT, 522202. GOGINENI RAMESH BABU @ RAMESH,, S/O. PRAKASA RAO, SERVICE MAN, R/O. FLAT NO. 403, CASTLE APARTMENT, CHENCHUPET, TENALI, GUNTUR ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AGED 41 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. FLAT NO. 402, K.N.R CASTLE APARTMENT, 522202. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 2 HN, J Crl.P.No.1192_2024 Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.448 of 2021 2021 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.448 of 2021 on the file of 1 Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Tenali, including personal appearance in so for petitioners/A1 to A3, pending disposal of this criminal petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. NAMRATHA CHOUDARY P Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. MARELLA RADHA 3 HN, J Crl.P.No.1192_2024 The Court made the following Order: 1. The petitioners are arraigned as accused in C.C.No.448 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners and the 2nd respondent are residents of KNR Castle Apartments situated at Tenali. The 2nd respondent has filed a complaint alleging that the petitioners had been troubling the other residents of the complex by resorting to abusive language, locking the gates of the complex, and restraining the workmen and housemaids from attending to their duties in various apartments. In this regard, when the 2nd respondent questioned the petitioners, they allegedly picked quarrels and threatened the 2nd respondent with dire consequences. Aggrieved by the conduct of the petitioners, the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint, which was registered as Crime No.109 of 2021. The police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet. It is submitted that the police have recorded the statements of four witnesses. LW1 is the de facto complainant, LW2 is her husband, LW3 is the watchman, LW4 is the wife of the watchman of the complex. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the year 2021, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions were imposed on movement of outsiders into the complex to contain the spread of the virus. It is submitted that the same was done with the bona fide intention of protecting and safeguarding the residents of the complex. 4 HN, J Crl.P.No.1192_2024 It is also submitted that the petitioners are all senior citizens and, due to the pendency of this case, they are unable to undertake any travel. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, except for the statements of LW1 and LW2, the statements of the alleged workmen who were restrained from attending duties were not recorded by the police. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent did not mention the specific dates of the alleged incidents that triggered the filing of the complaint. 5. It is submitted that neither the complaint nor the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. indicate any specific details of the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. In the absence of such specific details, ominous allegations and vague statements cannot withstand legal scrutiny. 6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioners have been acting in a high-handed manner and were constantly threatening the 2nd respondent and her husband. It is submitted that the petitioners used foul language against the 2nd respondent. That apart, it is submitted that the statement of the watchman was recorded, and it indicated that A3 and the 2nd respondent are residents of the complex. The 1st petitioner was acting as the President of the complex, and the petitioner No.2 is the Secretary of the complex and A3 was acting on the instructions of A1 and A2. It is also submitted that the A3 is a member of the society. 5 HN, J Crl.P.No.1192_2024 7. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent further submits that when allegations are made in the complaint and the statements recorded indicate that the petitioners have committed offences for which they are charged, the matter has to be relegated to the trial Court for the adjudication on merits after a full-fledged trial. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 9. As seen from the complaint or the charge sheet the dispute pertains to the residents of KNR Castle Apartment and the petitioners were officiating as association committee members and maintaining the affairs of the residential complex. The complaint and the charge sheet do not specifically state as to who was confined and on what date the alleged offence under Section 341 of IPC was committed. The statements of the listed witnesses also do not speak about who was confined, when and where and on what date for the offence under section 341 IPC to attract. 10. As seen from the averments of the complaint or the statements of the witnesses there appear to be some difference of opinion in the maintenance of the apartment during the Covid Pandemic when restrictions were imposed on movement of workers and other visitors to the apartment. 6 HN, J Crl.P.No.1192_2024 11. These trivial incidents without any details of the specific instances which attract the provisions of Section 341 of IPC continuances of CC.No.448 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali deserves to be quashed. 12. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 10.07.2025 NKA 7 HN, J Crl.P.No.1192_2024 232 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N Criminal Petition No. 1192of 2024 Date: 10.07.2025 NKA