Dismissed

Dobbeta Ramalinga , Rajalingam, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC8 Dec 2011CRLP/1948/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Petition challenging the petitioner's arrest. The court held that the allegations disclosed an offence of cheating against the petitioner and that the father-in-law was a competent complainant. It refused to adjudicate guilt as it was a disputed fact for investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to place all pleas before the investigation officer; police to keep Section 41 CrPC in view regarding arrest decision.

Dobbeta Ramalinga , Rajalingam, Vs The State of A.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

CRL.P.No.1948 OF 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Sri Vikram Ragi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Notice to the de facto complainant has been sent by the petitioner, and it is served on him.

¶5

The petitioner herein is A.3 in Crime No.26 of 2009 of P.S. Husnabad registered for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. It is stated that the de facto complainant is the father-in-law of the two persons, who had given money to A.3 on the promise made by A.1 and A.2 that they would send visas to them for employment in a foreign country. The other details are not necessary but it would be sufficient to note that A.1 and A.2 are said to have cheated the sons’-in-law by not sending the visas and money was paid to A.3 on the instructions of A.1 and A.2. The allegations do disclose the offence of cheating against all.

¶6

The contention of Sri Vikram Ragi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner-A.3 has nothing to do with the money, that, at best, the allegations would show that he received money and passed it on to A.1 and A.2 and that the petitioner-A.3 had never demanded the money from the de facto complainant.

¶7

It may be noted that the allegations in the complaint do disclose the offence of cheating against the petitioner-A.3 also apart from A.1 and A.2. The question whether the petitionerA.3 is innocent or guilty is a matter for investigation and is a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in this Criminal Petition.

¶8

Sri Vikram Ragi further contended that the de facto complainant himself is not the victim and, therefore, the complaint as such is not maintainable, and investigation cannot go on.

¶9

There is no force in this contention. It may be noted that the de facto complainant described himself as the

¶10

father-in-law of the persons, who gave money to the petitioner-A.3 at the instigation of A.1 and A.2. Thus, the de facto complainant is closely related to the persons who gave money and, therefore, it cannot be said that he cannot give the complaint. Nothing is brought to my notice that, in a situation like this, the complaint given by the father-in-law is not maintainable.

¶11

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. It shall be open to the petitioner to take all the pleas before the investigation officer, and the police shall also keep in view Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in taking a decision about the arrest of the petitioner-A.3.

¶12

N.RAVI SHANKAR,J

¶13

Date:08.12.2011 usd

Dobbeta Ramalinga , Rajalingam, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dobbeta Ramalinga , Rajalingam, v. The State of A.P.

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

Tanguturi Venkateswarlu, Vs Cholaveti Chenna Kesava Rao

Modh. Ismail, (A3) Vs Md.Iqbal

V.Radha Rukmini, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Puspa Bai, Vs T.Bankat Singh

Bylapudi Appala Satyam, Vs Bylapudi Sridevamma

Lam Raju Vs State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor