Disposed

Chitran Narsing Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC14 Dec 2011CRLP/10153/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. was not a fit case for quashing. Instead, the court directed the respondents to complete the investigation expeditiously while keeping the petitioner from arrest pending final report.

What did the court decide?

Cr.P. disposed of; investigation directed to be completed expeditiously; petitioner not to be arrested pending investigation.

Chitran Narsing Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10153 of 2010

¶3

Date : 14.12.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

Chitram Narsing Rao.

¶6

…Petitioner And

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Public Prosecutor & another.

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶10

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10153 of 2010

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.1071 of 2010 on the file of the Station House Officer, L.B. Nagar Police Station, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, which was registered for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.

¶13

The 2^nd respondent is the complainant. In the complaint filed by him on 23^rd of August 2010, he has complained that his Niece by name Uma Rani, who is the wife of the petitioner herein, was harassed by the petitioner and due to the said harassment, when the deceased went to her parents’ house, the petitioner visited her, and on seeing him, she consumed poison and died.

¶14

In this criminal petition, mainly, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the deceased had died because of the harassment of one Mr.Raju, who has

¶15

developed acquaintance with the deceased, but not at the instance of the petitioner. Such contention advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner is no ground to entertain this petition to quash the proceedings at this stage. With regard to the allegations made in the complaint, it is a matter for investigation by the Police. As this Court granted stay of arrest initially on 08.10.2010, it is stated that in connection with the above said crime, the petitioner is not arrested so far. Even the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents states that the investigation is still pending.

¶16

In view of the allegations made in the complaint, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for investigation, but not for quashing by entertaining this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At the same time, as it is stated that the investigation is pending and there was interim order by this Court for some time, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this criminal petition directing the respondents to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible, and pending investigation, the petitioner shall not be arrested. After filing final report, it is open to the respondents to take steps in accordance with law. It is also made clear that during the course of investigation, if the petitioner is to be questioned, it is open to the respondents to summon him and take his statements. Subject to above directions, this criminal petition is disposed of.

¶17

R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶18

14^th December 2011 ajr

Chitran Narsing Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitran Narsing Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanikommu Srinivasa Reddy Vs The Branch Manager

P.Preethi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Arfaath College of Education, Sagar Road, Miryalaguda, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Md. Raheem Vs The State of A.P.

B.v.Narayana Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Karunakar Vs Icici Bank Limited