IRGADINDLA CHINNAIAH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner-A2 and the Public Prosecutor for 1st respondent. For no representation to the 2nd respondent proof of service even filed and perused the grounds in the quash petition seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3/2016 pending on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Nirmal for the offences punishable under Section 186 and 506 (ii), read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and also perused the police Final Report and with Part II Case Diary and the Judgment in C.C.584/2009 out of the self same crime 71/2007 where A1 and A3 faced trial and were acquitted by Judgment dated 03.03.2017. It is there from the petitioner is seeking to quash the proceedings in saying on the self same evidence two of the accused already acquitted and he is also entitled to the same benefit under the issue estoppel.

(2.) Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same.

(3.) Heard and perused the material on record with reference to the benefits referred supra.