Dismissed

Thalluri Hanuma , Hanumantha Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC15 Feb 2012CRLP/1542/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition for quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court rejected the argument that filing proceedings constituted abuse of power. The court found the complainant and others suffered injuries and abuse as stated in the report, sustaining the criminal charges.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition seeking quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.8 of 2012 is dismissed.

Thalluri Hanuma , Hanumantha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra… — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition No.1542 of 2012

¶3

th Date:15 February, 2012

¶4

Between: Thalluri Hanuma @ Hanumantha Rao S/o.Bhaskar Rao

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

AND

¶7

The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶11

Criminal Petition No.1542 of 2012

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused in Crime No.8 of 2012 of Dornakal Police Station, Warangal District, to quash the proceeding therein.

¶14

2. 2^nd respondent-Jempala Satyam presented a report before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dornakal P.S., on 25.01.2012, alleging, inter alia, that on 22.01.2012 at about 12.30 P.M. the petitioner abused him and beat him with a stick and when Jarukula Seetharam intervened, he was also abused and assaulted. He and Jarukula Seetharam took treatment in the Government Hospital for the injuries received in the hands of the petitioner. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.8 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 447, 324, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

¶15

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, came to be registered by the Station House Officer, Dornakal P.S. Hence, this Criminal Petition by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the prayer stated supra.

¶16

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record.

¶17

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner presented a complaint against the 2^nd respondent herein regarding incident, dated 22.01.2012, but the Police have not registered the crime basing on the said complaint and whereas, the police registered a case in Crime No.8 of 2012 basing on the complaint filed by 2^nd respondent regarding the same incident, therefore, continuation of further proceedings in Crime No.8 of 2012 against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law.

¶18

5. I have gone through the report dated 25.01.2012. It is stated in the report that the 2^nd respondent-de facto complainant and another viz., Seetharam received injuries in the hands of the petitioner. The abuses hurled on the de facto complainant have also been stated in the report. Such is the accusation leveled against the petitioner further proceedings in Crime No.8 of 2012 cannot be interdicted in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶19

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶20

______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

¶21

Date:15^th February, 2012. cs

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶23

Criminal Petition No.1542 of 2012

¶24

th Date:15 February, 2012

Thalluri Hanuma , Hanumantha Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thalluri Hanuma , Hanumantha Rao, 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

S.K.Abdul Nayeem Vs State of Ap.

Chinna Swamy Pandian Vs The State of Ap.

B.Damodar Reddy Vs The State of Ap.,rep by Public Prosecutor

Vipul Chandok Vs Sheetal Chandok

J.Kanaka Durga Prasad Vs Smt. Nuthalapati Mary Puspalatha

Munnamgi Rajeshwar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh