Disposed

B.v.Narayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC14 Dec 2011CRLP/11275/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings, the Court held that the matter was at an investigation stage. The Court granted a direction to respondents to refrain from arresting the petitioners and ordered the police to complete the investigation within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to not arrest petitioners till completion of investigation within four months.

B.v.Narayana Reddy Vs State of Andhra… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.11275 of 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.106 of 2010 registered on the file of Ramagundam Police Station, Karimnagar District, against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 323, 290 and 506 IPC.

¶4

The second respondent herein has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Godavarikhani. On such complaint, the matter was referred to the police. There upon, a case in Crime No.106 of 2010 is registered against the petitioners and others for the aforesaid offences. Petitioners are accused 4, 5 and 6.

¶5

In the complaint, the second respondent stated that he is the younger brother of one Sri P.Ramakrishna, who was the Managing Partner of Sri Sai ConstructionsContractors at Sripadasagar Project, Yellampalli, Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District. He further stated that the said Ramakrishna engaged TATA Hitachi

¶6

Proclain on contract basis vide Work Order Nos.423/BU2/2008/B2827 and 4421/ BU2/2009/B2827, dated 03.11.2008 and 17.01.2009 of M/s.ITD Cementation India Limited at Sripadasagar Project, Yellampalli. He further stated that the said Ramakrishna died on 24.06.2009 and an amount of Rs.19,02,303/- was payable by the petitioners and others towards the bills of work done by him for Sri Sai Constructions. He further stated that taking advantage of sudden demise of the said Ramakrishna, the accused persons have illegally withdrawn an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- towards the bills payable to Sri Sai Constructions in collusion with some other persons by opening a new bank account in the name of Sri Sai Constructions. Thus, the petitioners and other accused have cheated as such they are liable for punishment for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 194, 333, 409, 419, 426, 420, 323, 290 and 506 IPC.

¶7

At the stage of admission, this Court granted stay of arrest of the petitioners for a limited period, while allowing the police to conduct investigation.

¶8

When the matter is taken up today, it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

¶9

first respondent that in the aforesaid crime, investigation is yet to be conducted.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused 4, 5 and 6 that the vehicle in question belongs to Sri Sai Constructions and the Company of the petitioners has paid the amounts due to Sri Sai Constructions and thereafter, one of the partners of the said firm has withdrawn the amounts. In this view of the matter, there is no case made out against the petitioners so as to proceed with the investigation in the crime in question.

¶11

On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent that in spite of legal notices issued to the Company, no response was given and the petitioners except referring to the cheques, have not given the particulars of persons to whom such cheques were issued and whether such cheques were issued in the name of Sri Sai Constructions for the bills due to it.

¶12

In this case, it is to be noted that the matter is at the stage of investigation. Whether the amounts due to Sri Sai Constructions were paid or not is a matter for investigation. In view of the contents of the complaint filed

¶13

by the second respondent, it cannot be said that no case is made out against the petitioners to proceed with the investigation for the alleged offences. Although it is pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the bill amounts due to the aforesaid firm were already paid, whether such amounts were paid or not is a matter for investigation by the police and at this stage, even before investigation, it is not possible to accept such contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶14

For the aforesaid reasons, as it is stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent that the investigation in Crime No.106 of 2010 is yet to be conducted,

¶15

I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents not to take any step for arrest of the petitioners till completion of investigation. The police concerned to complete the investigation in Crime No.106 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (4) months from today. It is open to them to take steps in accordance with law, subject to the outcome of investigation.

¶16

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

¶17

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶18

14^th DECEMBER, 2011.

¶19

kvni

B.v.Narayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.v.Narayana Reddy v. 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.

M. Karunakar Vs Icici Bank Limited

Chitran Narsing Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh