The Court dismissed a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings. It held that since the Court had already rejected a similar petition on the same grounds as the charge sheet prima facie attracted serious offences, the present application was an abuse of the process of law.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PEITION No.3881 OF 2011
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of further proceedings against the accused in P.R.C.No.20 of 2010 on the file of learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State. Perused the records.
3. Petitioner herein is facing prosecution for the offences under Section 354, 323, 447 and 506 IPC. Specific allegations have been made in the complaint against the petitioner, prima facie attracting the ingredients of the alleged offences. It is not disputed that earlier, petitioner filed Crl.P.No.1146 of 2011 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings against them and by order, dated 08.02.2011, the said petition was disposed of observing that since the charge sheet prima facie reveals allegations against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a second petition for quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable.
5. It is to be noted that the allegations made against the petitioner are prima facie attracting the ingredients of serious offence under Section 354 IPC apart from other
offences. The grounds urged for quashing the proceedings in the earlier petition in Crl.P.No.1146 of 2011 and the present petition are one and the same, pertaining to the same alleged offences. When this Court has already expressed opinion that it is not a fit case to quash the further proceedings, the second application for quashing the proceedings on the same ground is certainly not maintainable and filing of the present petition itself is clearly abuse of process of law.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complaint is filed with mala fide intention. The alleged mala fide in filing the complaint cannot be gone into at this stage as the matter is to be considered on evidence, during the trial.
7. Having regard to the gravity of the nature of the offences alleged against the petitioner, which require a full fledged trial, it is considered not a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings. There are no merits in this petition.
8. In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J
25th July, 2011. Tsy
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a second criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when prior order dismissed it observing charge sheet prima facie attracts allegations.
Whether the present application for quashing proceedings on the same grounds is maintainable after this Court has already expressed opinion that it is not a fit case to quash.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
State
G.V. Seethapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
