Disposed

Siva Sankar Reddy v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Feb 2024CRLP/276/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition No.276/2019 applied guidelines from Niharika Infrastructure and Arnesh Kumar cases. The Court held that since allegations disclose a cognizable offence punishable with less than seven years' imprisonment, quashing the FIR was not warranted. The petition was disposed of, and the investigation agency is directed to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition disposed of; Police directed to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

Siva Sankar Reddy Vs State of Ap — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 276 OF 2019

¶6

Between:

¶7

Y. Siva Sankar Reddy, S/o. Tirumala Reddy, aged 67 years, Occ. Cultivation R/o. Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶8

...Petitioner/Accused No.1

¶9

AND

¶10

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor at Hyderabad through M.R.Palli P.S., Tirupati.

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

Koduru Chinnaiah, S/o. Narasaiah, aged 39 years. Watchman, R/ o. Dhanalakshminagar, Avilala, Tirupati (R) Mandal, Chittoor^District.

¶13

...2"'* Respondent/Informant

¶14

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 call for the record pertaining to FIR No.418/2018^onthe file of the Station House Officer, M.R.Palli Police Station, Tirupati and consequently Quash the all the proceedings in FIR No.418 /2018 on the file of the SHO, M.R.Palli P.S., Tirupati in respect of the Petitioner/Accused No.1^concerned.

¶15

LA. NO: 2 OF 2019

¶16

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 stay of all further proceedings in FIR No.418/2018^{onthefileofthe} Station House Officer M.R. Palli P.S. Tirupathi UPD in respect of Petitioners/ Accused No..1

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing^{theMemorandum} of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments^{ofSriSrinivasulu} Kurra, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent^No.2

¶18

The Court made the following Order:

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION Nq.276 OF 2Qiq

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

The present criminal petition is filed to call for the record pertaining to FIR No.418 of 2018, dated 07.12.2018 before the M.R.Palli Police Station, Tirupati, wherein, the police have registered the crime for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 324, 427, 506 read with 34 IPC.

¶23

The Apex Court, after considering the plethora of citations, has laid the guidelines for quashing the FIR/complaints, in the case of Niharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Maharastra^. Following the said judgment and reiterating^the same guidelines, the Apex Court has passed an order in the case of State vs. M.Maridoss and another^ and the guidelines at paras 13.5 and 13.15 and at para 11, which reads thus:

¶24

13.5. While examining an FIR/compiaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/compiaint".

¶25

"13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider

¶26

2021 see online Se315 ^(2023) 4 see 338

¶27

¶28

whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required^to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the Court has to permit^the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."

¶29

"11. As per the settled position of law, it is the right conferred upon the investigating agency to conduct^the investigation and reasonable time should be given to^the 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."

¶30

As seen from the FIR, there is a specific allegation against the petitioner herein with regard to commission of offence.^Whilethere is a specific allegation against the petitioner for cognizable offence, this Court at the FIR stage cannot interfere or interdict the police from investigating the case.

¶31

In view of the judgments of the Apex Court referred supra and as the offence alleged is punishable with imprisonment^ofless than seven years, the police is directed to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and also the guidelines laid

¶32

¶33

5 5 \

¶34

down by the Hon'ble Suprenne Court in Arnesh Kumar^vs.Stateof

¶35

Bihar^.

¶36

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶37

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this

¶38

criminal petition shall stand closed.

¶39

^ (2014) 8 see 273

¶40

SD/- A VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, M R. Palli Police Station, Chittoor District. 2. One CC to Sri. Srinivasulu Kurra Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC's to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies SAM

¶43

sree

¶44

HIGH COURT DATED:09/02/2024

¶45

ORDER

¶46

CRLP.No.276 of 2019

¶47

DISPOSING OF THE CRLP

Siva Sankar Reddy v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siva Sankar Reddy v. State of Ap

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 M.Thippa Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by it's Principal

C.Venkata Reddy Vs State of Ap

M.Visweswara Reddy Vs State of Ap

A.Pothabathula Vs State of Ap

Challa Balaji Vs State of Ap

V.Lavanya Vs State of Ap