Dismissed

Varanasi Satyanarayana, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC24 Mar 2011CRLP/5878/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice G. Krishna Mohan Reddy dismissed a criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings. The court held that the existence of sufficient grounds was a pure question of fact requiring evidence. Since it was uncertain if the complainants falsely claimed assault or sought medical examination, the petition lacked merits and was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.230 of 2008 was dismissed for lack of merits.

Varanasi Satyanarayana, Vs The State of A.P. — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5878 OF 2008

¶3

Date: 24^th March, 2011

¶4

Between: Varanasi Satyanarayana And

¶5

…..Petitioner

¶6

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others.

¶7

…..Respondents

¶8

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶10

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5878 OF 2008

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings in C.C.No.230 of 2008 on the fie of the Court of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

¶13

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused and the respondents are the complainants in the Calender Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as complainant and 2^nd accused as arrayed in the calender case. It is claimed on behalf of the 2^nd accused as follows:

¶14

The complainants trespassed into Rail Vihar, Phase-III Project, Visakhapatnamyu, they were obstructed then by security guard. Therefore, the complainants beat with hands on his face and threatened him with dire consequences, following which he gave a report to the police, Pendurthi Police Station, which was registered as Crime No.170 of 2007, dated 2.5.2007. As counter blast to that, the complainants got registered C.C.No.230 of 2008 against the accused on the ground that on 22.4.2007 at about 6.00 p.m., while they (the complainants) were in front of the gate of their house, the accused were passing through that way and the complainants asked them as to why they were not following I.R.W.O. guidelines for constructing houses at the above site and then, the accused attacked the complainants using working tools challenging that they would not follow any rules and warned the complainants with dire consequence, following which the complaint was filed.

¶15

It is the contention of learned Counsel for the 2^nd accused that the claim of the complainants is not supported by any documentary evidence and if their claim is true, they would have given a report to the concerned police and would have been sent to a medical officer for medical examination.

¶16

It is the contention of learned Counsel for the complainants that all

¶17

those facts cannot be considered now.

¶18

The point that arises for consideration is that whether sufficient grounds are there to quash the proceedings.

¶19

The question involved is purely a question of fact. At this stage, it cannot be said as to whether the complaint filed by the complainants is false or not. It can only be decided basing upon necessary evidence to be recorded. It is not known whether a report was given to the concerned police and whether they were sent for necessary medical examination and whether corresponding medical certificates were issued or not.

¶20

Therefore, there are no merits in this petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶21

_____________________________________ JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 24^th March, 2011 Tjmr

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5878 OF 2008

¶24

DATE: 24^th March, 2011

¶25

TJMR

Varanasi Satyanarayana, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varanasi Satyanarayana, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Smt. S. Chandravva

The Union of India Vs D. Veera Babu

M/s. Ad-Age Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s. Srinivasa Towers Association

Sathi Tata Reddy, Vs Sathi Aruna

G.Padmaja Rani Vs Sri P.Gopala Krishna Reddy

The Union of India rep., by the General manager, Vs Manchikalapudi Sundara Rao