ASWARTHA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short 'Cr.P.C'] has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.6, 8 and 10, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in Crime No.18 of 2022 on the file of Somandepalli Police Station, Ananthapur District registered for the offence under Sec. 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[for short 'IPC'].

(2.) Heard Sri V.Sai Kiran, learned counsel representing Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that there are disputes between the family of Respondent No.2 and Accused No.1 for the last 25 years. Learned counsel would further submit that prima facie the ingredients of the alleged offence do not attract against the Petitioners. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged offence and they are not the parties to the alleged disputes. Learned counsel would further submit that Accused No.6 is working as Village Secretary in Pulakunta Panchayat, and he was on duty at the relevant time. Petitioner/Accused No.8 is a Software Engineer in Bangalore and Petitioner/Accused No.10 is working as Village Volunteer. All the Petitioners are respectable persons and were falsely implicated in the present crime. Learned counsel would finally submit that there are no specific allegations against the Petitioners and hence, continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse of process of law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and another,(2010) 8 SCC 628. Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.,(2002) 5 SCC 371. State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu and Others,(2019) 10 SCC 18.