Case Law Details
Nannapaneni Krishnamurthy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the investigation and proceedings against the petitioners, who are accused Nos. 12 and 13 in Crime No. 8 of 2021 registered at the CID Police Station, Amaravathi, Mangalagiri. The case involves alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120B of the IPC, and Sections 132(1)(i) read with Sections 132(1)(a), (b), and (f) of the APGST Act, 2017. The petitioners simultaneously filed an interlocutory application seeking a stay on further investigation and protection against arrest during the pendency of the criminal petition.
During the hearing, senior counsel for the petitioners argued that the only allegation made against the petitioners is that they acted as intermediaries in the rotation of money between buyers and sellers who are other accused in the complaint. He contended that even if all allegations in the complaint are accepted as true, none of the provisions of the APGST Act, including Section 132, are attracted to the petitioners. Counsel further argued that there are no specific allegations relating to the IPC offences listed in the complaint. The petitioners expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation and stated that they were summoned to appear before the investigating officer on 22 April 2021 and 24 April 2021, dates on which they intended to present themselves. However, counsel submitted that the petitioners fear coercive action, including arrest, despite their intent to cooperate.
The Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioners unless they fail to cooperate with the investigation. He also noted that a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. had been issued to the petitioners, indicating that the State did not intend to resort to arrest unless necessary.
The Court recorded these submissions and permitted the investigation to continue. It directed that no coercive action, including arrest, be taken against the petitioners when they appear before the investigating officer on the specified dates or any subsequent dates, unless further orders are obtained from the Court. The matter was posted to 5 May 2021 for further hearing.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings and investigation against the Petitioners (Accused No.12 and 13) Crime No.8 of 2021 on the file of CID Police Station, Amaravathi, Mangalagiri.
IA NO: 2 OF 2021
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.0 praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further investigation and proceedings as regards the Petitioners including the, arrest of Petitioners in Crime No.8 of 2021 on the file of CID Police Station, Amaravathi, Mangalagiri, pending disposal of CRLP 2440 of 2021, on the file of the High Court.
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Vimal Varma Vasi Reddy Advocate for the Petitioners, and of SC Cum SpI. PP, CID Advocate for the Respondents and the Court made the following.
ORDER:
“The petitioners are accused Nos.12 and 13 in Crime No.8 of 2021 in CID Police Station, Andhra Pradesh under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120(E) IPC and Sections 132 (1) (i) read with Section 132(1) (a)(b) and (f) of the APGST Act, 2017.
Sri Srinivas Dammalapati, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Vimal Varma Vasireddy, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the only allegation against the petitioners in the entire complaint is that they are intermediaries, who helped in rotating the money between the buyers and sellers of various goods and services, who are arrayed as other accused in this complaint.
He would submit that none of the provisions of the APGST Act, 2017 much less Section 132 of the APGST Act would be applicable to the petitioners even if the allegations in the complaint are taken to be true. He would also submit that there are no allegations against the petitioners in relation to the other offences set out in the ‘complaint.
Sri Srinivas Dammalapati also submits that the petitioners have no intention of avoiding the investigation as they would be able to demonstrate their innocence in relation to the allegations made against them. He submits that the petitioners have been summoned to appear before the investigating officer on 22.04.2021 and 24.04.2021 respectively. The petitioners would be appearing before the investigating officer on those days.
However, Sri Srinivas Dammalapati apprehends that coercive action would be taken against the petitioners including arrest of the petitioners without any such requirement being there.
Sri J.N.Bhushan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents are not taking any coercive steps against the petitioners unless they refuse to cooperate with the investigation. He submits that notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.0 has also been issued which would demonstrate that the state is not taking any coercive steps unless required.
Recording the above said submission, the investigation in this complaint may go on. However, no coercive steps will be taken against the petitioners including arrest as and when they appear before the Investigating Officer on 22.04.2021 by petitioner No.2 and 24.04.2021 by petitioner No.1 or such further dates without obtaining further orders from this Court.
Post on 05.05.2021, in the motion list.”
Author Bio
