Partly allowed

P.Narsimha Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC6 Jan 2012CRLP/1934/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed Criminal Petition regarding violation of Section 209 IPC filed on private complaint basis amidst property disputes between brothers while dismissing other forgery-related charges and dispensing with personal presence of female petitioners.

What did the court decide?

criminal petition allowed regarding section 209 IPC and quashed; dismissed regarding other offences; presence of female petitioners dispensed with.

P.Narsimha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1934 of 2010

¶3

Date: 06.01.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

P. Narsimha Rao and others.

¶6

…Petitioners.

¶7

And

¶8

The State of A.P., through S.H.O. & S.I of Police, Mangalgiri Town P.S., Guntur District rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another.

¶9

….Respondents.

¶10

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶11

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1934 of 2010

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard Sri G. Allabakash, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vijaya Babu, learned counsel for the defacto-complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶14

2. Petitioners herein are stated to be A1 to A4 in C.C.No.54 of 2009 on the file the Court of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mangalagiri. The offences alleged therein are those punishable under Sections 209, 386, 389, 467, 468, 471 and 474 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶15

3. Both Sri G. Vijaya Babu and Sri G. Allabakash say that initially police filed a final report in the matter closing that case, and, thereafter, the aforesaid case was registered on the protest petition or complaint filed by the defacto-complainant. The defacto-complainant and the 1^st accused are brothers, while the other accused are the

¶16

daughters of the 1^st accused. Thus, the parties are close relatives and it is seen that there are disputes between both the brothers regarding the properties of their mother. It is also stated that there is some civil litigation between the parties.

¶17

4. The version of the complainant is that his mother earlier executed a Will dated 18-07-1980 bequeathing her properties in favour of his son (grand son of that lady) and that subsequently the 1^st accused with the help of other accused got forged two other Wills are dated 24-7-1983 and the other an earlier are dated 15-11-2001 claiming the property. It is also stated that the 1^st accused subsequently gave a legal notice claiming a share in the properties pleading that his mother died intestate. So far as the offences relating to forgery of the Wills, there are allegations in the complaint, and, therefore this Court cannot interfere as the said allegations have to be enquired into by the learned Magistrate. The other offences except the one under Section 209 IPC are said to be connected to the offence of forgery.

¶18

5. So far as the offence under Section 209 IPC is concerned, it may be noted that it relates to setting up of a false claim in a proceeding before a Court of law. The said offence is cognizable only on the complaint of the Court in which it is alleged to have been committed but

¶19

not on a private complaint or otherwise.

¶20

6. In the above circumstances, this Criminal Petition in so far as the offence under Section 209 IPC is concerned, it is allowed and the Criminal Petition in question for that offence alone is quashed, but it is dismissed in respect of other offences.

¶21

7. Sri Allabaksh says that the petitioners 2 to 4 are ladies, and, therefore they have some inconvenience in attending the trial Court on every date of hearing and therefore, their presence before the trial Court may be dispensed with. Having regard to the plea that the petitioners 2 to 4 are ladies their presence before trial Court for every date of hearing is dispensed with and they can be represented by a counsel but subject of course to the discretion of the trial Court to summon their presence as and when it considers it necessary.

¶22

8. This petition is accordingly partly allowed.

¶23

_________________________ JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶24

Date: 06.01.2012. mrb

P.Narsimha Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Narsimha 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

K.Pratap, Vs P.Mohan Reddy

B. Subba Rao, Vs State of a.P., rep. by Inspector of Police

Buddula Tirupathi Rao, Vs Mukti Janardhan

Ponnam Ravichandra, A(2) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Bhasker, Vs The State of A.P.

P.B.Krishna Bharathi, Vs M/s Swarnadra Grafics