Disposed

Mellaboyina Hemanth Hari Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC21 Dec 2011CRLP/10227/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to quash proceedings under Sections 498-A and 420 IPC, observing that specific allegations of cheating and financial demand were made out, though titles were matter for investigation. The Court directed the police to complete the investigation without arresting the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Directed police to complete investigation of Crime No.285 of 2010 without arresting petitioners; Criminal Petition disposed of.

Mellaboyina Hemanth Hari Prasad Vs The State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10227 of 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.285 of 2010 on the file of Patamata Police Station Law and Order, Vijayawada City, registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 420 IPC, on the complaint lodged by the third respondent/complainant.

¶4

In her complaint, dated 13.04.2010, the third respondent stated that she was married to the first petitioner as per Hindu rites on 21.08.2008 at Sri Brahmaramba Mallikarjunaswamy Temple, Srisailam, and at the time of engagement on 06.08.2008, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. She further stated that at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.3,00,000/- and also gifted gold ornaments. She further stated that since the date of marriage, the first petitioner is not leading marital life with her and when she questioned him, he has stated that he suffered an accident and is taking treatment. She also

¶5

stated that the petitioners demanded her for bringing another 2 lakhs and also to get transfer of the property of 10 cents.

¶6

Precisely, it is the complaint of the third respondent that she was cheated by not disclosing the health condition of the first petitioner and there was a demand for money and transfer of property illegally.

¶7

In this Criminal Petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that from the contents of the complaint lodged by the third respondent, no offence is made out against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 420 IPC.

¶8

On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State that the matter is at the crime stage and in view of the contents of the complaint, it cannot be said that no case is made out against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 420 IPC.

¶9

I have heard the learned counsel and perused the contents of the complaint. A reading of the complaint lodged by the third respondent reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioners as to their

¶10

cheating and demanding her to get further amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and to transfer 10 cents of land, as such, at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioners have not committed any offence so as to entertain this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.285 of 2010. It is true that the allegations against petitioners 2 to 5 are vague but it is matter for investigation.

¶11

This Court while issuing notice before admission on 08.10.2010, passed interim order and the same is continued by further order, dated 20.12.2010 and since then, it is in force.

¶12

In that view of the matter, as it is submitted that the investigation is to be conducted on the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to direct the police to complete the investigation in Crime No.285 of 2010, as expeditiously as possible, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. Further, there shall be a direction to the police not to arrest the petitioners till investigation is completed and final report is filed. It is made clear that the police to take steps in accordance with law after filing final report.

¶13

Subject to the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶14

______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶15

21^st DECEMBER, 2011. kvni

Mellaboyina Hemanth Hari Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mellaboyina Hemanth Hari Prasad 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

M/s.Industrial Associates, 4-3-25, 3465, Dandu Chambers, Vs The deputy Registrar of Co.op.Societies/

Aswathanaryana Rao Vs the Secy. A.P. Burgula Ramakrsihna Rao

P.Venkateswarlu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary

S.v.Ramana Murthy Vs K.Raj Shekhar,S/o. Sri K.Kumaravelu

Genius Online.Net and Another Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Velivela Sivaparvathi , Prasanthi, Vs State of A.P.