The petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings but the Public Prosecutor reported investigation completed with no evidence against the petitioner. The court held specific quashing unnecessary and closed the petition as such.
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 JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7687 OF 2008
Between:
G. Shiva Kumar Goud. ..... PETITIONER.
AND
The State of A.P., Rep. By its Station House Officer, Madhapur, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... RESPONDENT.
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime No.344 of 2007, against the petitioner/fourth accused on the file of Madhapur police station, Cyberabad.
The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. N. SHOBA, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the sole respondent,
the Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7687 OF 2008
ORDER:
Heard Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel representing Smt N. Shoba, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel, representing the learned Public prosecutor for the sole respondent.
The first information report in Crime No.344 of 2007 on the file of Madhapur police station, Cyberabad was registered against the petitioner and others under Sections 419, 468 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and is being investigated into. This Court has directed in Criminal Petition No.4499 of 2008 that the police shall conclude the investigation within one month from 24-07-2008 and admittedly, the investigation has not been completed so far notwithstanding the said directions in the Criminal Petition filed by the petitioner herein. The petitioner again approached this Court, for quashing the proceedings in the said Crime against him on that ground and also on the ground that being a legal practitioner for more than twenty years standing at the bar, he is innocent of the alleged offences.
Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent, reported on instructions that, the investigation into the Crime has been completed by the police and that the police found insofar as the petitioner is concerned, that there is no evidence/material to implicate him in
the crime or attribute any criminal liability to him. The learned counsel stated that the police are accordingly filing their final report under Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the competent Court.
In the light of the said submissions by the learned counsel on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor, any specific orders of quashing the proceedings against the petitioner become unnecessary and superfluous and still if some proceedings arise out of Crime No.344 of 2007 in future involving the petitioner, it is always open to the petitioner to meet them by taking recourse to appropriate remedies available to him under law in respect of the same and for the present, the Criminal Petition can be closed as unnecessary.
Therefore, the Criminal Petition is closed as unnecessary.
____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:02-09-2009. Dsh.
G. Shiva Kumar Goud.
The State of A.P.
G. Bhavani Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
