Dismissed

Thalluri Suresh v. The State Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Nov 2022CRLP/6777/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the petition to quash a criminal complaint. While quashing was barred to thwart investigation into fresh cheating allegations, a direction was issued to prevent the petitioner's arrest until the charge sheet is filed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was dismissed; however, a direction was issued to the investigating officer not to arrest the petitioner during the investigation, permitting arrest only at the time of filing th

Thalluri Suresh Vs The State Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6777 of 2022

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.3 in Crime No.1 of 2022, filed before the Cyber Crimes Police Station, for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 409 r/w Section 66-D of I.T Act. It is stated that Section 467 and Section 34 were added subsequently.

¶5

The allegations in the complaint are that there were various disputes between the de facto complainant and Accused Nos.1 and 2, who are said to have defrauds the de facto complainant, for huge amounts of money and subsequently a complaint was filed as Crime No.523 of 2019 in Madhapur Police Station and the same has resulted in a charge sheet being filed and the case has been numbered as C.C.No.298 of 2021 in the Court of IV Additional Junior Judge, Nampalle. Subsequently, the present complaint was filed on the ground that accused Nos.1 and 2 along with the petitioner who is arrayed as Accused No.3 had also committed fraud and cheating on the de facto complainant, including fabrication of documents, attracting the provisions of Section 467 and 468 of I.P.C. The petitioner has filed the present petition to quash the said complaint.

¶6

¶7

Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao learned counsel for the

¶8

petitioner appearing for the petitioner assails the complaint itself on the following grounds.

¶9

i) There are no allegations against accused No.3 making out a case against accused No.3 (petitioner);

¶10

ii) That the disputes between the de facto complainant and accused Nos.1 and 2 had been resolved by way a memorandum of understanding which requires any further disputes to be referred to arbitration and as such criminal complaint ought not have been filed;

¶11

iii) The dispute is a civil dispute which can be resolved through arbitral proceedings mentioned in the memorandum of understanding;

¶12

iv) The public notice issued by the de facto complainant would show when even the complaint is made in the first F.I.R is relating to civil dispute rather than a criminal dispute.

¶13

Sri Narra Srinviasa Rao would also submit that the allegations made against the petitioner herein are at best allegations of offences against the first and second accused in the case and nothing more.

¶14

Sri Shashanka Bhuvanagiri, learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant would submit that clear

¶15

¶16

allegations had been made against the petitioner and he has been arrayed as accused No.3 as he had participated in the cheating of the de facto complainant along with accused Nos.1 and 2. He would also submit that a part of the funds transferred by the de facto complainant to accused Nos.1 and 2 have been transferred to the bank account of accused No.3 and the same can be demonstrated.

¶17

The petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court to quash a complaint which is still under investigation. It is settled law that the courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C should not to thwart any investigation at the inception itself. (Skoda Auto Volkswagen India (P) Ltd., Vs. State of U.P.¹

¶18

As the allegations in a complaint are only the starting point for investigation, it would also not be appropriate to take the complaint as the entire encyclopedia of facts and discretion must be allowed to the investigating officer to complete investigation and to ascertain whether the contents of the complaint relate only to the earlier complaint which is now being tried as C.C.No.298 of 2021 in Cyberabad or whether

¶19

1 2020 SCC Online SC 958

¶20

¶21

there are fresh incidents of cheating, as complained by the de facto complainant.

¶22

In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to permit the investigation to go on. However, the contention of the petitioner that he has been unnecessarily brought into the matter and that he is being harassed on account of the investigation in this case, cannot be set aside. In the circumstances, there shall be a direction to the investigating officer not to arrest the petitioner during the course of the investigation. However if the investigating officer arrives at a conclusion that the petitioner has committed any of the offences set out in the complaint, the petitioner may be arrested at the time of filling of the charge sheet alone.

¶23

10. Accordingly, this criminal petition is disposed of.

¶24

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

¶25

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶26

14.11.2022 RJS

¶27

¶28

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶29

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6777 of 2022

¶30

14.11.2022

¶31

RJS

Thalluri Suresh v. The State Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thalluri Suresh v. The State Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Tarimala Chalapathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jangala Anil Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jangala Anil Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kikuri Satish Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kikuri Satish Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr. Kikuri Satish Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh