In a common order dismissing two criminal petitions, the High Court refused to quash FIRs for IPC and SC/ST Acts offences because the police investigation was complete and a charge sheet was imminent.
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
THURSDAY, THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4845 AND 5003 of 2007
Crl.P.No.4845 of 2007 Between: V.Srinivasa Rao
… Petitioner
And
The State of A.P., rep. By Public Prosecutor and another
… Respondents
Crl.P.No.5003 of 2007
Between: - P.Ramaseshamraju
… Petitioner
And
The State of A.P., rep. By S.H.O., P.S. Khammam II Town Khammam and others
… Respondents
This Court made the following:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4845 AND 5003 of 2007
COMMON ORDER: -
These two petitions are filed by A2 and A1 in Crime No.195 of 2007, to quash the F.I.R. registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the S.Cs., S.Ts., (POA) Act, 1989.
The complaint allegations disclose that the complainant along with the petitioners and other person by name Maddela Venkateswarlu were working as juniors in the office of Sri H.Rama Rao. On 05.08.2007, at about 10.00 A.M., A2 made a telephone call to the complainant to his house and called him to his house. On the complainant going to the house of A2 at Mamillagudem, along with one Tota Srinivasa Rao, A2 telephoned to A1 and called him to his house. Later A2 along with A1 questioned the de facto complainant about the return of money given by the senior and why the de facto complainant told their senior that the said amounts were returned back by the petitioners by borrowing the same from the neighbours and also abused him in the name of his caste in the presence of T.Srinivasa Rao and others. On the basis of the said complaint, a crime was registered by the police for the offences as aforementioned, which is now sought to be quashed.
This court granted stay in Crl.P.No.4845 of 2007 filed by A2 for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(x) of the SCs, STs (POA) Act,1989 only on 24.08.2007 for a period of six weeks, which was extended from time to time. Lastly it was extended on 26.03.2008 and thereafter the stay has not been extended. Whereas there is no stay in
the criminal petition No.5003 of 2007 filed by A1.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor now submits that since the stay has not been extended, police completed the investigation and whether they have filed final report or not, has not been informed to this Court.
In view of the fact that the police already investigated the crime and informed that they are going to file the charge sheet, it is always open for the police to file the charge sheet. When the complaint allegations clearly disclose an offence, which have to be investigated by the police and file its report, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings.
The Criminal Petitions are dismissed.
_______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J
9th September 2010 lmv
V. Srinivasa Rao
P. Ramaseshamraju
The State of A.P.
Gopal Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
