The High Court dismissed the criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR. Holding that the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence, the Court refused to quash the proceedings but directed the police to follow Section 41A Cr.P.C. guidelines.
Criminal Petition dismissed; Police directed to follow Section 41A Cr.P.C.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4272 OF 2018
Between:
B.Krishna Naik, S/o Bhimla Naik, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Tahsildar (u/s) R/o.H.No.43/114-8-1-1, Near Teja School, Prakash Nagar, Kadapa.
...Petitioner/Accused No.18
AND
The State of AP., through Station House Officer, Vempalli PS., YSR Kadapa District, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the FIR No.309 of 2017 to the extent of the petitioner pending on the file of the Vempalli Police Station, YSR Kadapa District in the interest of justice.
I.A. NO: 2 OF 2018
The Court made the following: ORDER
T*
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4272 OF 2018
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed assailing the F.I.R. No.309 of 2017 dated 16.12.2017 of Vempalli Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, registered for the offences punishableunder Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 482 I.P.C. and to quash the same.
- The Apex Court, after considering the plethora of citations, has laid the guidelines for quashing the FIR/complaintsinthe
case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd., us. State of MaharashtraK Following the said judgment and reiteratingthe same guidelines, the Apex Court has passed an orderinthecase of State vs. M.Maridoss and another^ and the guidelines at paragraph Nos. 13.5 and 13.15 and at paragraph No. 11, which read thus:
"13.5 While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwiseof the allegations made in the FIR/complaint."
( '2021 s6c Online SC 315 -(2023)4 see 338
riH.
2
"13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercisesthe power under Section 482 Cr. P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commissionof a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."
"11. As per the settled position of law, it is the right conferred upon the investigating agency to conductthe investigation and reasonable time should be given tothe investigating agency to conduct the investigation unless it is found that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence at all or the complaint is barred by any law."
7
3
- On viewing the aforesaid allegations, it appears thatthe petitioner/A18 herein along with other accused havecolluded with farmers and sanctioned loans to the loanees who have availed loans by pledging loans bogus pattadar passbooksand caused deficiency of the assets of the society funds. It is the case which has to be investigated by the police ontheaforesaid allegations. As there is a specific allegation against the petitioner/A18, this Court cannot quash the proceedings.
- In view of the judgments of the Apex Court referred supra and as the offence alleged is punishable with imprisonmentof less than seven years, the police is directed to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 41A Cr.P.C. and also the guidelines laid down by the Hon^ble Supreme Court inthecase of Amesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar^.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any in this case, shall stand closed.
3 (2014) 8 see 273
SD/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
To,
SECTION OFFICER
I' Sf Magistrate of First Class. Pulivendula, KadapaDistrict 3 Onl CC to"sri°R pTf"'I!?''''® YSR Kadapa District. 6. une uu to Sri B Sarvotham Reddy, Advocate [OPUCl t: Tree CD Copfes'"’'''' ^'9^' Court of A.P. at Amaravathi[OUT] RDB
sree
HIGH COURT
DATED:12/12/2023
ORDER
CRLP.No.4272 of 2018
DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION
1 AL 2_l'LV'2jn'Li-(
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal petition seeking quashing of the FIR on cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. State of MaharashtraFollowed¶20
Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra
State vs. M. MaridossFollowed¶20
State vs. M. Maridoss
Amesh Kumar vs. State of BiharFollowed¶32
Amesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar
2 provisions across 1 enactments
B. Krishna Naik
State of AP.
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
