Dismissed

Dumpala Sukanya, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Jun 2024CRLP/3816/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition for anticipatory bail. The offenses alleged (cheating, forgery) were punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Court directed the police to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C. before arrest, citing Arnesh Kumar, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed police to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C. before arrest; Criminal Petition disposed of.

Dumpala Sukanya, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheating and Forgery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 381fi OF 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Dumpala Sukanya, W/o Dumpala Karthik, Aged about 30 years, D.No.10-117, Ashok Nagar, Gudur, Nellore. Andhra Pradesh-524 101.

¶7

Dumpala Karthik, S/o Polaiah Aged about 33 years. D.No.10-117, Ashok Nagar, Gudur, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh-524 101.

¶8

...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1&2

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House Officer, Gudur I Town Police Station, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to grant Anticipatory bail the Petitioners on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.76 of 2023 before Gudur I Town Police Station, Tirupati.

¶13

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing^the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M RAVINDRA, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

¶14

The Court made the following:

¶15

¶16

APHCai^243982024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
4;- 0ij0 AT AMARAVATI [3459]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
ja

¶17

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3816/2024

¶21

Between:

¶22

„.PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶23

Dumpala Sukanya, and Others „.PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1.M RAVINDRA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶25

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 Cr.P.C.,^hasbeen filed on behalf of the petitioners/A1 and A2, to grant anticipatory^bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.76 of 2023^ofGudur I Town P.S, Tirupati, for the offences under Sections 420, 468,^{471and506ofIPC.}

¶29

¶30

The brief facts of the case is that the daughter of the complainant has completed 10'^ class and at the time of joining her in intermediate, her younger sister and her brother-in-law have deceitfully told that they knew one Swathi Reddy, who has good relations with PACE Junior college and took Rs.6,00,000/- from the complainant by showing a bogus certificate of the college. The complainant has believed and enrolled her daughter in Gudur Adi Shankara Engineering College for B.Tech. The college^hasinsisted his daughter to produce intermediate certificate. When the complainant asked her sister for intermediate certificate, they demanded for Rs. 16,00,000/- for issuing the said certificate. The complainant has inquired in PACE College and he came to know that there is no such admission in the name of her daughter and the certificate shown by her sister is not related to their college. Even in the past, the accused cheated the complainant by taking money from her in the name of business and job by creating forged^{documentsandfakeID} cards and also threatened the complainant. Due to fear^ofthat, she^couldnot give report so far and now and she lodged a complaint^{ontheadviceOfthe} elders.

¶31

Heard Mr. M. Ravindra, learned counsel for the petitioners,^and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

¶32

Perused the material on record.

¶33

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that none of the sections are attributable to the petitioners as there is no case of cheating or forgery and there are no specific allegations leveled against the petitioners in the complaint or in the FIR.

¶35

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the police may be directed to follow Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.

¶36

Since the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment^of less than seven years, this Court directs the police to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. scrupulously as per the guidelines enunciated in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Biharand another^

¶37