APHC010110802021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1738/2021 Between: 1. SIDDAVARAM GOPAL REDDY @ GOPI REDDY, S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, KUNDANELLORE VILLAGE, NANDALUR MANDAL Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NANDALUR POLICE STATION, KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. GUVVA SURESH, S/O GOVINDA RAJU, OCC COOLIE, SATHU STREET, MANNURU VILLAGE, RAJAMPET MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 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 against the Petitioner in S.C No.217 of 2019 on the file of III Additional 2 District and Sessions Court,Fast Track,Rajampet ,kadapa District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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, including the appearance of the Petitioner in S.C.No. 217of 2019 on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Court, Fast Track, Rajampet, Kadapa District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. K VENUGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court Made the Following Order: The instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner herein/Accused No.2, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in S.C.No.217 of 2019 on the file of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Court, Fast Track, Rajampet, Kadapa District, for the offences under Sections 304 II and 201 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 read with 180, 181, 192(A) and 196 of M.V. Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a resident of Mannuru Village, Rajampet Mandal, and he earns his livelihood by doing coolie work. On 15.07.2018, the complainant, along with his son and other family members, went to work at Kundanellore Village, Nandalur Mandal. While they were working, his son was playing nearby. At the work site, there was a stationary tractor. Later, another tractor arrived 3 carrying sand. The driver of the newly arrived tractor then reversed it negligently, despite someone behind the vehicle shouting loudly that there was a boy playing there. The tractor trailer hit the boy on the head, and he cried out loudly. The complainant and others rushed to the spot and saw that the boy had sustained serious bleeding injuries to his head. They immediately took the boy in an auto to the Government Hospital, Rajampet. However, upon examination, the doctor informed them that the boy had been brought dead. 3. Heard Sri K.Venu Gopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State. Perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein/A2 is the owner of the tractor. The driver of the tractor is alleged to have caused the accident in which a small boy died. Learned counsel further submits that the offence under Section 304 II IPC is not applicable to the petitioner, and there are no ingredients to attract any offence against him. Hence, he prays this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition, stating that except the offence under Section 304 II IPC, all other offences are attracted against the petitioner. The allegation 4 against the petitioner is that he tampered with the evidence relating to the commission of the crime. Hence, she prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material on record, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the offence under Section 304 II IPC does not attract against the petitioner, who was not present at the time of the alleged offence. Therefore, the question of liability in this regard does not arise. 7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is partly allowed to the extent of quashing the offence under Section 304 II IPC against the petitioner. However, the case may proceed with respect to the remaining offences. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date : 17.07.2025 ASR 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.1738 of 2021 Dt.17.07.2025 ASR