Dismissed

Challa Balaji v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Feb 2024CRLP/424/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a criminal petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Rejecting the plea, the Court held that specific allegations existed and the trial stage/police investigation could not be interfered with and directed the police to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; no investigation quashed; police directed to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

Challa Balaji Vs State of Ap — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY j TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR I

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 424 OF 2019

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sambpiva Rao, aged 31 years, Hindu. R/o 10-4-4, Park Road, Near Chakka Vanthena, Sattenapalli Town, Guntur District.

¶8

...Petitioner/Accused

¶9

AND

¶10

^ Anfarava^h?^^^^^^^ Pradesh, Rep. by its Public^{Prosecutor,HighCourt}

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

Nn 7 Narayana Murthy, Aged 33 years, R/o. D. No.7-6-30, Sattenapalli Town, Guntur District.

¶13

...Respondent/Complainant

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is filed praying that in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the in Crime No^lOZ^/PmsS sattp® to Quash the proceedings in FIR No. 197/2018 of Sattenapalli Town Police Station., Guntur District. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2niQ Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is fiied praying that in the Htah"court“mau^bl'' 7 ''’® of Grounds of Criminal Petition,^the No 197/2S877L«»n= T7 I'Y proceedings in FIR in Crime oAhe aboJe cJiST'eJhion Croiinl f n Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Srinivas Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondeni No.1 and of Sri. G.V.L. Murthy Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶15

The Court made the following Order:

¶16

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RA3ASEKHAR RAO

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No.424 OF 2019

¶18

ORDER;

¶19

The present criminal petition is filed to call for^the records pertaining to Crime No.197 of 2018, dated 01.09.2018 before Sattenapalli Town Police Station, Guntur District. Wherein, Stattenapalli police registered offence under Section^420readwith 34 IPC.

¶20

There is a specific allegation in the report lodged^tothepolice against the petitioner, which attracts Section 420^{readwith34IPC.}

¶21

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^thesame guidelines, the Apex Court has passed an order in the^caseofState vs. M.Maridoss and anothei^ and the guidelines at paras 13.5 and 13.15 and at para 11, which reads thus:

¶22

"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 otherwise^of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint".

¶23

2021 see online Se315 ^ (2023) 4 see 338 \ \

¶24

¶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 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."

¶26

"11. 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."

¶27

In the present case, there is a specific allegation against the petitioner herein with regard to commission of offence. While there 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.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

¶31

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of

¶32

Bihat^.

¶33

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶34

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

¶35

criminal petition shall stand closed.

¶36

SDI- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶37

//TRUE COPY//
{-Section officer
To,
1. The III Additional Sessions Judge: Guntur. Guntur District,
o’ House Officer, Sattenapalli Town Police Station, Guntur District
3. One CC to Sri. K Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC to Sri. G V L Murthy, Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CC's to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati [OUT]
6. Three CD Copies
SAM

{-Section officer

sree

(2014) 8 see 273

HIGH COURT DATED:09/02/2024

¶42

ORDER

¶43

CRLP.No.424 of 2019