Komaravolu Sai Srinivas Vs Komaravolu Gayathri on 10 Oct 2022

A single bench of AP High Court, relying on Sangita Saha Vs Abhijit Saha and Ors here, held as follows,

In view of the principle laid down in Sangita Saha V. Abhijit Saha (2020 (3) SCC (Cri) 573), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that when the petitioner therein was unable to establish any incident of torture or demand for money or physical violence, she is not entitled for any maintenance, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order needs adjudication.

Citations :

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144262882/

Gogineni Lakshmi Gowthami Vs State of AP and Anr on 20 Oct 2022

Posted on December 16, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge allowed the marking of documents and examination via video conferencing tools.

From Para 2,

2. In the course of the trial of the case, the respondent had filed Crl.M.P.No.76 of 2022 under Section 275(1) Cr.P.C and 285(3) of Cr.P.C to permit the respondent to mark documents and to depose before the Court of Trial via Skype or Blue Jeans or any other alternative electronic media and for costs. This application was allowed by the trial Court by an order dated 31.03.2021 with certain conditions.

From Para 5,

5. Smt.K.Sesha Rajyam, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Hima Bindu learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the application would be covered by the provisions of Section 273 of Cr.P.C and mere mentioning of a wrong provision in the order would not invalidate the order. She submits that Section 273 of Cr.P.C only stipulates that evidence taken during the course of trial should be in the presence of the accused and there is no restriction as to where the evidence can be recorded. She would further rely upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharastra vs Dr Praful B.Desai1. She contends, on the basis of the above Judgment, that recording of evidence by way of video conferencing is permissible and does not in any manner violate any of the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

From Para 9,

9. Sri Akhil Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the right of cross examination of the petitioner has been forfeited by the trial Court, during the pendency of the present petition. If an order has been passed, the same shall be disregarded and the trial Court shall afford an opportunity of cross examination to the petitioner as and when the respondent makes necessary arrangements in terms of the order for being examined through video conference. For this purpose, the respondent shall be given two weeks from today to comply with the directions of the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.76 of 2022.

Gogineni Lakshmi Gowthami Vs State of AP and Anr on 20 Oct 2022

The time limit to finish Cross Examination through Video conferencing was extended considering some difficulty.

Gogineni Lakshmi Gowthami Vs State of AP and Anr on 11 Nov 2022

Chintakayala Vijay Vs State of AP and Ors on 05 Dec 2022

Posted on December 6, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on Landmark judgment here, Single bench of AP HC held that,

From Para 6,

6. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents herein to strictly comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This would include the requirement of the respondents uploading all the complaints registered by the respondents on to the website of the police authorities or the website of the State Government, in the absence of any website being maintained by the police authorities. There shall be no order as to costs.

Chintakayala Vijay Vs State of AP and Ors on 05 Dec 2022

Ravi Ramesh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 Mar 2022

Posted on November 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court held as follows,

From Para 4,

4. Learned counsel further relied on the decision passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.1954 of 2020, following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2008 in the case of “Suresh Nanda V. CBI”, wherein the Apex Court observed that impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or thing. Accordingly, this court held that neither the Police nor the Courts have power to seize the passport or to direct the accused to deposit or surrender the passport even when a criminal case is pending in the court of law and only the Passport Officer is the competent authority to impound the passport.

3 Ravi Ramesh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 Mar 2022

Y Usha Gayatri Vs State of AP and Anr on 13 Oct 2020

Posted on October 18, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of AP HC held as follows while directing to release the passport of the petitioner.

From Para 4 and 5,

4. In view of the above finding of the Hon’ble Apex Court, directing for surrender of passport or to deposit the same in the Court is ex-facie illegal and it is clearly un-sustainable under Law.
5. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, neither the Police nor the Courts have power to seize the passport or to direct the accused to deposit or surrender the passport even when a criminal case is pending in the Court of law and only the Passport Officer is the competent authority to impound the passport.

Y Usha Gayatri Vs State of AP and Anr on 13 Oct 2020

Citations:

Other Sources:

Kuchiraju Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 28 Jan 2020

Posted on October 18, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of AP High Court held as follows while directing to release passport of the petitioner.

6. The law is now fairly well settled that the Courts have no power to direct the accused to deposit or surrender the Passport, even when a criminal case is pending against the accused in the Court of law. It is only the Passport Officer, who is the competent authority under Passports Act, to impound the Passport of any citizen of the country. If the police got any apprehension that the accused, who is facing trial in the criminal case, may leave the country and he may not be available for trial of the case, they have to approach the Passport authority concerned with a request to impound the Passport of the said person on the ground that he is facing trial in a criminal case. If the Court, before whom the accused is facing trial, is of the opinion that if the accused leaves the country and goes abroad that he may not be available for trial, the Court can issue necessary direction to the accused not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court or on a petition filed by the prosecution to that effect, the Court can pass appropriate order in this regard.

From Para 8, the Precedent

8. Therefore, in view of the dictum laid down in aforesaid Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the impugned order directing the petitioner to surrender his Passport or to deposit the same in the Court is ex-facie illegal and it is clearly unsustainable under law.

Kuchiraju Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 28 Jan 2020

Citations:

Other Sources:

B.Parvathi Vs State of AP on 7 May, 2020

Posted on September 6, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A reasoned judgment on maintainability of IPC 494 upon the Accused No.2 and the merits of discharge petition filed before Trial Court u/s 227 CrPC. It relies on AP State Amendment of 1992.

In Page 35,

Earlier the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC is a non-cognizable offence. The Legislative Assembly of the State of Andhra Pradesh by way of Andhra Pradesh Second Amendment Act 3 of 1992, amended the first schedule to Central Act 2 of 1974 i.e. the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and made the offence under Section 494 IPC a ‘cognizable’ offence and a ‘non-bailable’ offence. The said Andhra Pradesh Second Amendment Act 3 of 1992 was reserved by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh on the 21.10.1991 for consideration and assent of the President. The Presidential assent was received on 10.02.1992 and the amendment was published on 15.02.1992 in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette Part IV-B (Ext.). Therefore, with effect from 15.02.1992 undoubtedly the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 495 IPC are cognizable offences in the State of Andhra Pradesh. So, the police officer can now register the case under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and can investigate the same under Section 156 Cr.P.C. The bar engrafted under Section 198(1) Cr.P.C. to take cognizance of the case under Section 494 IPC is on the Court and not on the police. So, in view of the fact that it is a cognizable offence, police can register the case on a report lodged with them to that effect and also investigate the case and file final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Now, the crucial question that arises for consideration is, whether Court can take cognizance of the case on such police report/ charge-sheet filed by the police or not in view of the express bar engrafted under Section 198(1) Cr.P.C. on the Court to take cognizance of the case except upon a complaint filed by the aggrieved party before it.

B.Parvathi Vs State of AP on 7 May, 2020

Pasagadula Sai Kiran Vs Union of India and Ors on 04 Aug 2022

Posted on August 10, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of AP High Court held that Regional Passport Officer can be directed by Court to issue Police clearance certificate.

From Paras 4 and 5,

4. The learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that the service of issuing a police clearance certificate is a voluntary service being given for the benefit of Indian citizens and there is no underlying duty cast on the 2nd respondent, by virtue of any provision of law or Judgment of the Court, to issue such police clearance certificates. He would further submit that a Writ of Mandamus cannot lie against the 2nd respondent and there is no legal duty cast on the 2nd respondent to undertake such activities. Further, the 2nd respondent cannot give a clean chit to the petitioner and would have to incorporate the details of the aforesaid crime in any certificate that can be issued to the petitioner.
5. In view of the fact that the 2nd respondent has been issuing such certificates to citizens staying abroad, the 2nd respondent cannot take the stand that since it is a voluntary service, there cannot be any direction to the 2nd respondent to issue or not to issue such certificates.

Pasagadula Sai Kiran Vs Union of India and Ors on 04 Aug 2022

Gattupalli Ujwal Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 30 Oct 2019

Posted on July 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Single bench of AP High Court held as follows based on Sumer Salkan decision here.

In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, issue of red corner notice against the family members of the husband of the victim of an offence punishable under Section 498- A of I.P.C is quashed. However, the Apex Court and the other courts laid down certain guidelines as to when such a red corner notice is to be issued. Based on the guidelines, issued in Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director and others1, the Delhi High Court observed as follows:

The questions are answered as under:

A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest.

B. The Investigating Officer shall make a written request for LOC to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of Home Affairs, giving details & reasons for seeking LOC. The competent officer alone shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this respect.

C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation by appearing before I.O. Or should surrender before the court concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also approach the officer who ordered issuance of LOC & explain that LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial Court where case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned.

Gattupalli Ujwal Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 30 Oct 2019

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28103125/

R.Rambilas Vs Anita and Anr on 16 Mar 2009

Posted on May 30, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Justice K.C. Bhanu had delivered this judgment.

From Paras 4-5,

(4) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the first respondent/wife had given up her right to seek maintenance as per agreement dated 16. 11. 1998 and therefore, continuation of the proceedings in the maintenance case is nothing but abuse of process of Court.
(5) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that, even a divorced wife is entitled for maintenance; that, the agreement and the divorce were obtained by playing fraud; that, even if any such agreement is there, that will not preclude the first respondent herein from claiming the maintenance. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied upon various decisions, which will be referred to, at appropriate time.

From Para 12,

(12) THE learned Counsel for the first respondent also placed strong reliance on a decision in Bai Tahira v. AH Hussain Fissalli Chothia and another, AIR 1979 sc 362, wherein it is held thus : (Para 10)
“the last defence, based on Mehar payment, merits more serious attention. The contractual limb of the contention must easily fail. The consent decree of 1962 resolved all disputes and settled all claims then available. But here is a new statutory right created as a projection of public policy by the Code of 1973, which could not have been in the contemplation of the parties when in 1962, they entered into a contract to adjust their then mutual rights. No settlement of claims which does not have the special statutory right to the divorcee under Section 125 can operate to negate that claim.”

Closure from Paras 14-15,

(14) THEREFORE, from the above decisions, it is clear that, even if there is an agreement which would defeat the provisions of any law, the same cannot be used as a defence in a proceedings under section 125 Cr. P. C.
(15) IN view of the above decisions, it is clear that even if there is such an agreement where under and whereby the parties relinquished her right to maintain, it would not be a bar to file a petition under section 125 Cr. P. C. and therefore, the maintenance case is maintainable and question of quashing the same does not arise.

R.Rambilas Vs Anita and Anr on 16 Mar 2009

Citations : [2009 ALD CRI 1 855]

Other Sources :

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea70a6607dba369a6ee51e

https://www.lawyerservices.in/R-Rambilas-Versus-Anita-2009-03-16

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification

Komaravolu Sai Srinivas Vs Komaravolu Gayathri on 10 Oct 2022

Gogineni Lakshmi Gowthami Vs State of AP and Anr on 20 Oct 2022

Chintakayala Vijay Vs State of AP and Ors on 05 Dec 2022

Ravi Ramesh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 Mar 2022

Y Usha Gayatri Vs State of AP and Anr on 13 Oct 2020

Kuchiraju Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 28 Jan 2020

B.Parvathi Vs State of AP on 7 May, 2020

Pasagadula Sai Kiran Vs Union of India and Ors on 04 Aug 2022

Gattupalli Ujwal Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 30 Oct 2019

R.Rambilas Vs Anita and Anr on 16 Mar 2009