Remanded

Cheepulla Seetharam v. State SHO of Arilova Ps Visakhapatnam City

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Nov 2022CRLP/4512/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition filed by an accused challenging a complaint under Sections 354-D and 509 IPC, the Court permitted the investigation to continue while prohibiting arrest, noting serious credibility issues in the complaint.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; investigation permitted; order passed that the petitioner shall not be arrested during the course of investigation.

Cheepulla Seetharam Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

Crl.P.No.4512 of 2022

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner is accused in Crime No.289 of 2022 of Arilova Police Station, Visakhapatnam, for the offences punishable under Sections 354-D and 509 IPC.

¶5

The complaint of the de facto complainant dated 23.06.2022 was that the petitioner was misbehaving with her and stalking her attracting the provisions mentioned above.

¶6

The petitioner seeks quashing of the said complaint on the ground that the petitioner, who was working as a Ward Welfare and Development Secretary of the locality, where the de facto complainant and some others reside, had addressed a letter dated 22.12.2021 to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam and other officials, stating that the de facto complainant and five other people were pressurizing him to sanction welfare schemes to ineligible beneficiaries and were threatening him with filing of false cases against him unless he agreed to their demands.

¶7

It is the contention of the petitioner that the complaint itself is a false complaint, made solely for the purpose of harassing him and making him recommend ineligible beneficiaries to the welfare schemes. The question whether the complaint given by the de facto complainant has any truth or not, requires an investigation into the matter. The letter dated 22.12.2021 which was received by the Commissioner, GVMC and

¶8

RRR,J 2 Crl.P.No.4512 of 2022

¶9

the Collector, Visakhapatnam about six months before the complaint of the de facto complainant would also raise serious issues on the credibility of the complaint.

¶10

In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to dispose of this criminal petition permitting the investigation to go on. However, the petitioner shall not be arrested during the course of the said investigation.

¶11

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶12

closed.

¶13

_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶14

21^st November, 2022 Js.

¶15

RRR,J 3 Crl.P.No.4512 of 2022

¶16

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶17

Crl.P.No.4512 of 2022

¶18

21^st November, 2022

¶19

Js.

Cheepulla Seetharam v. State SHO of Arilova Ps Visakhapatnam City

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cheepulla Seetharam v. State SHO of Arilova Ps Visakhapatnam City

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kadali Lakshmi Naga Venkata Ramana Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Thummala Swathi Sayamala Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nakka Surya Kumari Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.K.Aruna Vs State SHO

Morturu Sudha Laxmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kunuru Eswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh