Disposed

M.a.Rasheed, v. a.Srikanth

Telangana HC5 Jul 2011CRLP/5249/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge order dismissing a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of kidnapping proceedings. Court found prima facie case的存在 and rejected quash arguments. Directed separation of absconding accused A-3's case and expedited trial of remaining within three months.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; order to separate case against absconding A-3 and dispose attended accused case within three months.

M.a.Rasheed, Vs a.Srikanth — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5249 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.555 of 2008 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶5

The petitioner is A-4 and said to be a Police Constable-6257 of Dabeerpura Police Station. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet against four persons for the offence under Section 365 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).

¶6

The case of the prosecution is that on 08.07.2008 when L.Ws.1 to 3 were returning from Malakpet to Kacheguda on motorcycles near Azampura, L.W.3 informed that he will go to the house of Mohammed Ali and half an hour later returned and when all of them proceeding towards Azampura cross roads at about 6.45 PM one Maruti Swift vehicle bearing No.AP 16 AS 2329 came from behind and stopped in front of the scooter of L.W.3 and forcibly dragged him and pushed him inside and when he questioned one of them informed that he was a Task Force Police Constable and they threatened, therefore, L.W.3 was kidnapped. The investigation was conducted and statements of the witnesses were recorded and charge sheet was filed against all the accused for the offence under Section 365 read with Section 34 of IPC. A-3 was said to be absconding and the present petitioner is A-4.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no material to show that the accused-petitioner was involved in the crime and his name is not mentioned in the F.I.R. There is said to be only the confessional statements of A-1 and in view of the circumstances, as the confession is not admissible the prosecution case is not

¶8

maintainable. According to him, no identification of the accused was also conducted.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment reported in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL^[1] , which is the judgment dealing with the conditions of quashing of the criminal proceedings, under clause-7 it is mentioned that “if a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the prosecution can be quashed”.

¶10

To the same effect in another decision reported in the case of MADHAVARAO J. SCINDIA v. SAMBHAJIRAO G. ANGRE^[2] , wherein it was held that the power of the Court is to see whether prima facie case is established.

¶11

In this application for the proceedings to quash, no personal grudge is alleged by the petitioner against the Investigating Officer or against any of the witnesses. The statement of the witnesses shows that one person claimed as Task Force Constable. As can be seen from the contents of the charge sheet, the accused is also said to have participated actively along with others and in fact when L.W.1 is said to have questioned the petitioner, he said to have informed that they were from Task Force Police. The effort of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that except the confession of A-1 and the statement of the witnesses does not disclose identity of the accused. The petitioner also does not say any personal grudge against A-1 to involve him in the incident. Even in the absence of a Test Identification Parade, whether the evidence of the witnesses is to be believed or not is a question of fact, which has to be ultimately decided by the Court after taking the evidence. Mere latches of not holding identification proceeding cannot be a ground to quash the entire criminal

¶12

proceedings. As the matter stands, there is absolutely no motive attributed against anyone for implicating the petitioner in the crime.

¶13

Furthermore, the identification also may not be very difficult as the incident is said to have happened at about 5.30 PM in day light and there was also some exchange of words between the witnesses and the alleged offenders. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, it is not a case to hold that there is no prima facie case to quash the proceedings and it is devoid of merits.

¶14

However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner A-3 was absconding since long time and no effort was made by the lower Court to separate the case.

¶15

In view of the above circumstances, the lower Court is directed to separate the case against A-3 and proceed against the attending accused and dispose of the case expeditiously within a period of three months. The accused shall attend before the Court and cooperate for the trial. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶16

________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J

¶17

Date: 05-07-2011 MR

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5249 of 2011

¶20

DATE: 05-07-2011

¶21

¶22

[1] AIR 1992 SC 604

¶23

[2] (1988) 1 Supreme Court Cases 692

M.a.Rasheed, v. a.Srikanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.a.Rasheed, v. a.Srikanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gampala Srinivasulu Vs Bathala Ramaswaiah

Mohamed Tajuddin, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kadamanchi Peda Ranga Rao , Peda Rangaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dantuluri Sathiraju, Vs Ch. Suryanarayanaraju (died).

Thakur Surekhadeep Singh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Secty Edu.Dept.Govt.of a.P.and Anr. Vs Nisar Ahmed Desai.and Anr.