Dismissed

Ch.Koteshwar Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC16 Feb 2012CRLP/1736/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings instituted based on a complaint alleging theft, assault, and humiliation of the complainant by the petitioners at her residence.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The proceedings in C.C.No.1740 of 2011 are to continue.

Ch.Koteshwar Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Telangana HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition No.1736 of 2012

¶3

(Dated : 16-02-2012)

¶4

Between:

¶5

Ch.Koteshwar Rao and others

¶6

….Petitioners

¶7

A n d

¶8

State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, Hyderabad

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶10

Criminal Petition No.1736 of 2012

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by A-1 to A-3 in C.C.No.1740 of 2011 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Miyapur to quash the proceedings therein.

¶13

2. The 2^nd respondent-J.Varalakshmi presented a complaint before IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Miyapur alleging inter alia that on 10-9-2010 at about 12.00 noon, the petitioners herein came upon her house and dragged her out from the house and committed theft of Rs.70,000/- and gold ornaments, i.e., two lockets of 10 grams each and one gold ring. It is further stated in the report that the petitioners have been making threatening calls since 11-10-2010. After recording the sworn statements and the witnesses produced by her, the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Miyapur took the complaint on file as C.C.No.1740 of 2011. Hence, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking the relief stated supra.

¶14

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

¶15

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 3^rd petitioner filed cases against the 2^nd respondent herein, viz.,

¶16

(1) D.V.C.No.18 of 2010 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada; (2) Crime No.621 of 2010 of Nunna P.S., Vijayawada city; (3) M.C.No.188 of 2011 on the file of Family Court, Vijayawada; (4) Crime No.197 of 2011 of Vijayawada city police

¶17

and as a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the 3^rd petitioner, the 2^nd respondent who is no other than her mother-in-law resorted to file a complaint with all false accusations.

¶18

5. I have gone through the complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent before IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Miyapur. Paras (8) and (9) of the complaint needs to be noted and they are thus:-

¶19

“ It is submitted that while this is so on 10.09.2010 at about 12.00 noon the parents o f Padmaja (A3) ,Ch.Koteshwara Rao and Nancharamma who is A1 and A2 herein, along with some unsocial elements came to the house of the complainant at Hydernagar, and forcibly gained entry into the bedroom and pick up quarrel with her by saying that she is responsible for the personal affairs of A3 and Tulasinath. When the complainant conveyed her innocence by stating that she was nothing to do with their affairs, the accused persons not listen her words. They threatened with dire consequences to disclose the whereabouts of Tulasinath. The A1 Koteshwara Rao dragged the complainant by pulling her saree and dragged her by holding the saree in his hand, in order to outrage her modesty. All the accused persons cooperated him to dragging from the inside of the house to main road. All of them attacked the complainant with sticks and also used unparliamentarily words.

¶20

9. Thereafter all the accused persons entered into the house and stolen cash of Rs.70,000/- kept in the almarah from the house and gold ornaments, i.e., two lockets of 10 gms each and one gold ring, one gold chain of 10 grams total worth of Rs.2,00,000/-. Due to the humiliation the complainant was put to great shock. Then all the accused by stealing the above articles went to Vijayawada.”

¶21

6. It is specifically stated in the complaint that the petitioners herein came upon her, assaulted and committed theft of Rs.70,000/- apart from certain gold ornaments. Such is the accusation leveled against the petitioners, further proceedings in CC No.1740 of 2011 cannot be quashed.

¶22

7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶23

_____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J

¶24

Dt.16-02-2012 RAR

Ch.Koteshwar Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch.Koteshwar 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

Vipul Chandok Vs Sheetal Chandok

J.Kanaka Durga Prasad Vs Smt. Nuthalapati Mary Puspalatha

Munnamgi Rajeshwar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Kotha Yadamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd. Rafiq Ahmed Vs State of Ap., Rep.byits

Domala Padma Rao Vs The State of Ap., Rep byits