Dismissed

G.Krishna Murthy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC16 Apr 2012CRLP/1483/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed by accused persons seeking to quash proceedings for criminal intimidation and voluntary hurt. The Court held that the allegations prima facie attracted sections 503, 506, and 323 IPC, thus precluding quashing.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition praying for quashing of proceedings is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending in the criminal petition stand dismissed.

G.Krishna Murthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1483 OF 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners /A1, A3, A4 and A5 filed this petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1250 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶5

2. The allegations in the complaint would go to show that on 25.05.2009 at early hours, all the accused came to the house of the complainant and asked her to sign on some blank papers so that the case can be closed. The complainant did not agree for the same. All of a sudden A1 to A3 started abusing the complainant by using unparliamentary language. A4 caught hold hair of the complainant, and A1 to A3, A5 and A6 beat her and tore her cloths. Therefore, she filed a private complaint with a request to refer the complaint to police for investigation and file a report under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and had taken the cognizance under Sections 323 and 506 I.P.C. Challenging the same, the present petition is filed by the petitioners/A1, A3, A4 and A5.

¶6

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide; that the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and the personal grudge, the complaint is lodged and the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners are nothing but abuse of process of Court.

¶7

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent contended that specific allegations are leveled against all the petitioners; that they threatened the de facto complainant to withdraw the Maintenance Case filed; that such a threatening is a criminal intimidation; that since prima facie case is made out, the question of

¶8

quashing the proceedings does not arise and hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶9

5. There cannot be any dispute that when the allegations in the complaint and the sworn statement recorded do not disclose the commission of offence and do not make out a prima facie case against the accused, then only the question of quashing the complaint arises. At this stage, the allegations in complaint cannot be decided as true or false. The sworn statement would go to show that on 25.05.2009 at about 10.30 A.M. all the accused came to the house of the de facto complainant located at S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad on the ground of compromising the matter and they demanded her by using force on her to withdraw the Maintenance Case filed by her before the civil Court and when she refused to sign on blank paper as directed by them, A2 and A6 beat her with hand and A1 to A6 threatened her not to reveal anything of the criminal intimidation.

¶10

6. Under Section 503 I.P.C., whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation, and whoever voluntary causes hurt is an offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C.

¶11

7. The allegation is that all the accused threatened the de facto complainant to withdraw the Maintenance Case filed against them. That accusation prima facie attracts Section 506 I.P.C. Similarly, the allegation that A6 beat the de facto complainant with hand attracts Section 323 I.P.C. Therefore, the question of quashing the complaint does not arise.

¶12

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that all the petitioners have to come from Chattisghad and that their presence may be dispensed with before the trial Court. For that purpose, the petitioners

¶13

have to file an application before the trial Court and on filing of such application, the trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶14

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 11. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed.

¶15

__________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶16

Date: 16.04.2012 Ivd

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1483 OF 2010

¶19

Dated: 16^th April, 2012

¶20

Ivd

G.Krishna Murthy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Krishna Murthy, v. The 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

Sri Gayathri Dye and Chem Vs a.K.P.Textiles Manufactures of Export Fabrics Nagari

M/s. Silkways Travels Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/s. Sea Bir Travels

Adapa Srinivas, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lakkadi Surya Prakash Reddy, (A1 Vs State of Ap., Rep.byits

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs G.Perumallu , B.Padma, (A2)

Dontha Vijaya Kumar, (Accused No.1), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh