IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI •TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBf^UARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE O ¥ h. PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRWIAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2263 OF 2022 Between: 1. Bakka Rama Krishna, (A3) S/o Basavaiah, Hindu, aged about 42 years, GullapaHiKurappalem Village, Cherukupalfi Mandal, Guntur Dist. 2. Bakka'Umarnaheshwara Rao, (A4) S/o Basavaiah, Hindu, aged abbUf'" 40 years, GullapaHiKurappalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur Dist. 3. Bakka Srinivasa Rao, (A5) S/o Basavaiah,Hindu, aged about 44 years, GullapaHiKurappalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur Dist. 4. Bakka Dhanunjaya Rao, (A6) S/o Basavaiah, Hindu, aged about 38 years, GullapaHiKurappalem Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur Dist. 5. BakkaBasavaiah,(A7) S/o Late Obulaiah,Hindu, aged about 64 years GullapaHiKurappalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur Dist. 6. Bakka Lakshmi, (A8) W/o Basavaiah,Hindu, aged about 64 years, GullapaHiKurappalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur Dist. 7. Bakka Vijayalakshmi, (A10) W/o Krishna,Hindu, aged about 43 years, GullapaHiKurappalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur Dist. 8. Bakka Veera Murali Krishna, (A11) S/o Krishna,Hindu, aged about 27 years, GuHapaHiKurappalem Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur Dist. 9. Bakka Srinivasa Rao,(A13) S/o Venkateshwarlu,Hindu, aged about 30 years, GuHapaHiKurappalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur Dist. Bakka Sujatha, (A14) W/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 28 V'^^ars, GullapaliiKurappalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur Dist. Kesana Anka Siva Kumari,{A16) W/o Late Bhagavantha Rao, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Gullapalti Kurappalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur Dist. Mannem Nadumulamma, (A18) W/o Yanadi,Hindu, aged about 63 years, Guilapalli Kurappalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur Dist. it A 12. Mannem Narendra Rao, (A19) S/o Late VenkateswaraRao, - Hindu, aged about 28 years, GullapaliiKurappalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur Dist. 13. Mannem Suresh,(A20) S/o. Late VenkateswaraRao, Hindu, aged about 26 years, GullapaliiKurappalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur Dist. 14. Mannem Eswara Gopi, (A21) S/o Late Venkata Rama Rao, Hindu, aged about 31 years, GullapaliiKurappalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur Dist. 15. Mannem Naresh, (A22) S/o Late Venkata Rama Rao, Hindu, aged about 24 years, GullapaliiKurappalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur Dist. 16. Bakka Tirupatamma, (A23) S/o Late Ramaswamy, Hindu, aged about 42 years, Gullapaili Kurappalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur Dist. 17. ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED) AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh. $> 2. Gowra Subba Rao, S/o. Late Kotaiah, Aged about 74 Years, R/o. K-tejrappalem Village, CherukupaIJi Mandal, Guntur District, ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to quash the order Dt-07.02.2020 passed in CrI.M.P. 322 of 2019 in C.C.No. 1 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Sessions Judge at Guntur I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order Dt: 07.02.2022 passed in CrI.M.P.322 of 2019 in C.C.No. 1 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Sessions judge at Guntur pending disposal of the Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of tbe Respondent No.1 and Ms Nimmagadda Revathi, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following order: APHC010134092022 BMS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2263/2022 Between: 1. BAKKA RAMA KRISHNA, (A3) S/0 BASAVAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, GULLAPALLIKURAPPALEM VILLAGE, CHERUKUPALLIMANDAL,GUNTURDIST. 2. BAKKA UMAMAHESHWARA RAO,, (A4) S/0 BASAVAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, GULLAPALLIKURAPPALEM VILLAGE, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST. 3. BAKKA SRINIVASA RAO,, (A5) S/0 BASAVAIAH,HINDU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, GULLAPALLIKURAPPALEM VILLAGE, CHERUKUPALLIMANDAL, GUNTUR DIST. 4. BAKKA DHANUNJAYA RAO,, S/0 BASAVAIAH,HINDU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, GULLAPALLIKURAPPALEM CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST. 5. BAKKABASAVAIAH,, S/0 LATE OBULAIAH,HINDU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, GULLAPALLIKURAPPALEM VILLAGE, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST. 6. BAKKA LAKSHMI,, W/0 BASAVAIAH,HINDU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, GULLAPALLIKURAPPALEM VILLAGE, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST. 7. BAKKA VIJAYALAKSHMI,, (A10) W/0 KRISHNA,HINDU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, GULLAPALLIKURAPPALEM VILLAGE, CHERUKUPALLIMANDAL, GUNTUR DIST. 8. BAKKAVEERAMURALI KRISHNA,, S/0 KRISHNA,HINDU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, GULLAPALLIKURAPPALEM CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST 9. BAKKASRINIVASARAO,, S/0 VENKATESHWARLU,HINDU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, GULLAPALLIKURAPPALEM VILLAGE, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST. 10.BAKKASUJATHA, W/0 SRINIVASA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, GULLAPALLIKURAPPALEM VILLAGE, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST. 11.KESANA ANKA SIVA KUMARI,, W/0 LATE BHAGAVANTHA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, GULLAPALLIKURAPPALEM VILLAGE, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST. H NAOUMULAMMA, W/0 YANADI,HINDU, AGED ABOUT 63 GUILAPALLIKURAPPALEM VILLAGE, CHERUKUPALLI 12.MANNEM YEARS, MANUAL, GUNTUR DIST. 13 MANNEM NARENDRA RAO HINDU AGED ABOUT 28 \/ii i APF CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST. ^ylAMNFM SURESH S/0 LATE VENKATESWARARAO, HINDU, aged rsOUT IfYEARS, GULLAPALLIKURAPPALEM VILLAGE, CHERUKUPALU MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST^^^ aged AbIuT 31 year's, GULLAPALLIKURAPPALEM VILLAGE, 1S NAREsfIf' S^TE”tA RAMA RAO, HINDU, aged ABOUT I4 YEARS GULLAPALLIKURAPPALEM VILLAGE, f"^KllA^flR“»A,"w/0.lfl RAMASWAMY, HINDU, aged A^fuT 42 Y^ARS, GULLAPALLIKURAPPALEM VILLAGE, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR S/0 LATE VENKATESWARARAO, YEARS, GULLAPALLIKURAPPALEM 15. MANNEM AND PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC 1 THE STATE OF ANDHRA pro^fCUTOR AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 7 IIwfIa SUbV fSTo S,o. LATE KOTAIAH. AGED ABOUT 74 2.GOWRA CHERUKUPALLIMANDAL. YEARS, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESP0NDENT/C0MPLAINANT(S); Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.NIMMAGADDA REVATHI The Court made the following; ORDER. under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Petitioners/Accused seeking to quash the Order Crl.M.P.No.322 of 2019 in C.C.No.1 of 2019 on file of the Court of V Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. The instant petition 1973^ has been filed by the dated 07.02.2020 passed in the > for short ‘Cr.P.C’ Heard Sri Srikantha Reddy Ambati, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri Katari Kishore Kumar, learned counsel representing Ms.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1 /State. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that there are several disputes pending before different forums from the past 10 years between the Petitioners and Respondent No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that based on the complaint given by Accused No.1 herein, a case in Crime No. 160 of 2011 was registered against Respondent No.2 for the offences under Sections 354, 429 and 506 read with 34 IPC and as a counterblast to the said case, the present case has been foisted by falsely implicating the Petitioners by way of filing a petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is submitted 2. 3. that Respondent No.2 is a chronic litigant having criminal antecedents and a Learned counsel would rowdy sheet has also been opened against him. further submit that the allegations leveled against the Petitioners are all false Learned counsel and they were intentionally dragged into the present case, would finally submit that the order passed by the learned trial judge directing the prosecution to add the names of the Petitioners in the case, is not In support of his sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside, contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others^ Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners in the commission of the 4. ^ (2014)3 see 92 4 aileged offences. As such, the learned trial Judge has rightly ordered to add the names of the Petitioners in the present case'r'' Learned counsel would further submit that the truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be revealed during trial. Learned counsel would finally submit that there are no grounds to quash the order passed by the learned trial Judge. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the 5. learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Point for Determinations Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the Order dated 07.02.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.322 of 2019 in C.C.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the Court of V Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur? Determination by the Court A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling 6. 7. 5 P reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. As seen from the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2, it is alleged that, on 31.12.2011 at about 7.30 a.m., all the Accused having formed as unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, beat him with iron rods and crowbars and attempted to kill him, in view of the previous grudges between the families of the Accused and the Complainant. Based on the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2, a case in Crime No. 161 of 2011 on the file of Cherukupalli Police Station has been registered against all the Accused for the offences under Sections 147, 326 and 307 read with 149 IPC. Police, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 326 read with 34 IPC by deleting the names of the Petitioners herein and also Sections 147, 307 read with 149 IPC. Subsequently, the Prosecution filed Crl.M.P.No.322 of 2019 in C.C.No.1 of 8. 2019 on the file of the Court of V Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, under Section 319 Cr.P.C to implead the Petitioners in the present case, learned Sessions Judge allowed the said petition vide Order dated 07.02.2020 The and directed the Prosecution to add the names of the Petitioners herein and to proceed with the trial along with Accused Nos.1 and 2. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed seeking quashment of the said order. The material placed on record would disclose that, based on the 9. complaint lodged by Accused No.1 herein, with regard to the same incident, a case in Crime No. 160 of 2011 on the file of Cherukupalli Police Station, for the 6 . offences under Sections 354, 429 and 506 read with 34 IPC was registered against Respondent No.2 herein and his wife. The material would further show that, in view of the registration of several criminal cases against Respondent No.2, a Rowdy Sheet has also been opened against him. In the present crime, the Police, on examination of the independent 10. witnesses and recording of their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. having found that the Petitioners herein have role to play in tbe present crime and that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 147 and 307 read with 149 IPC do not attract, deleted the names of the Petitioners and Sections 147 and 307 read with 149 IPC and filed charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 and 2 only for the offence under Section 326 read with 34 IPC. 11. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts have consistently examined the scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C., which empowers the trial Court to summon any other person as an Accused in a pending trial, where the evidence recorded during trial suggests the involvement of such person in commission of the alleged crime. For ready reference Section 319 Cr.P.C is extracted hereunder:- "Section 319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. 7 (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the Inquiry into, or trial of the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub section (1), then- fa) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be- commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial i/i/as commenced." reading of the above would show that this Section vests extraordinary power with the trial Court to summon any other person as an accused to face trial along with other accused, who are before the trial Court, but invariably the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as different High Courts have held that this discretionary power should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. At this juncture, when the trial has already commenced, the degree of satisfaction required to be recorded by the trial Court while summoning any other person as additional Accused, should be more than the standards required at the stage of framing of charges. In other words, the evidence record must strongly suggest more than a "prime facie" case against such a person and his involvement in commission of the crime. or 12. A on 13. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court Hardeep Singh’s case (supra), categorically held that, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that 8 some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. It should not be exercised in a casual way. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court while following the decision in Hardeep Singh's case {supra), observed in Labhuji Amratji Thakor and others Vs. State of Gujraat^ as under: "13. The High Court does not even record any satisfaction that the evidence on record as reveaied by the statement of victim and her mother even makes out a prima facie case of offence against the appeiiants. The mere fact that the Court has power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to proceed against any person who is not named in the F.i.R. or in the Charge Sheet does not mean that whenever in a statement recorded before the Court, name of any person is taken, the Court has to mechanicaiiy issue process under Section 319 Cr.P.C.The Court has to consider substance of the evidence, which has come before it and as iaid down by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh's (supra) has to appiy the test, i.e. "more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction." In the instant case, a reading of the impugned Order dated 07.02.2020 15. would show that the trial court has failed to analyze the substance of the prosecution witnesses while exercising the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the present case is a counter case to the case filed by Accused No.1 herein against Respondent No.2 herein and his wife. The trial Court has not assigned reasons in specific for adding the Petitioners herein as Accused In such circumstances and in view of the judgments in the above case. referred to supra, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the said Order suffers from illegality and impropriety and warrants interference by this Court. ^(2019) 12 see 644 9 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the Order dated 07.02.2020 passed in Cri.M.P.No.32‘2 of 2019 in C.C.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the Court of V Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall Sd/-M. PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The V Additional Sessions Judge at Guntur 2. One CC to SRI. SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to M/s. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED;18/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.2263 of 2022 'i 19 JUN 2025 % ^ . Current aeciion .y ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION