Dismissed

Kharusi Ali Salim Ali v. The State of Ap.,Through its Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC24 Jan 2012CRLRC/2518/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., the High Court held that the trial court's order dismissing the discharge petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was not illegal. The court directed the trial court to dispose of the pending charge-sheet expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed; the Trial Court directed to dispose of the case expeditiously within three weeks.

Kharusi Ali Salim Ali Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Revision Case No.2518 of 2011

¶3

2 4 th January, 2012

¶4

Between :-

¶5

Kharusi Ali Salim Ali .. Petitioner And

¶6

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶8

Criminal Revision Case No.2518 of 2011

¶9

ORDER:-

¶10

This revision is directed against the order dated 14-12-2011 passed in Crl.M.P.No.96 of 2011 in S.C.No.650 of 2010 on the file of the VIII-Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, whereby and whereunder, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

¶11

The accusation made against the petitioner is that he has been found taking two ladies, namely Smt.Farzana Begum (LW.2) and Smt.Zareena Begum (LW.3) in a deceitful way of providing employment to them in Oman, on 27-1-2010 at RGI Airport, Shamshabad. The police apprehended the petitioner along with two ladies at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Shamshabad. A case in

¶12

Crime No.29 of 2010 came to be registered against the petitioner and others on the complaint of Sri G.V.Ramana Reddy, Inspector of Police, Immigration RGIA, Shamshabad. After due investigation, the S.I. of Police, Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, filed charge-sheet before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrte, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar. The case came to be committed to Sessions Division, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge took the case on file as S.C.No.650 of 2010 and subsequently made-over the same to the VIII-Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge framed charges on 1-6-2011. Prosecution examined P.W.1 in part on 12-9-2011 and whileso, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.96 of 2011 under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing of the prosecution and the accused, proceeded to dismiss the petition by order dated 14-12-2011. Para 11 of the said order needs to be noted and it is thus:-

¶13

“The contentions raised by the petitioner are touching the main points involved in this case, those to be decided after completion of the trial through evidence. The learned Addl.P.P. correctly pointed out that the charge alleged by the accused are grievous in nature and that to be decided only after examining the witnesses by the prosecution. Considering that this Court arrived at a conclusion that this is not proper stage to discuss the ingredients of the alleged offences and material placed before the Court to decide in favour of the petitioner. Further the above material prima facie showing the case against the petitioner.”

¶14

Hence this revision by A.1 – Kharusi Ali Salim assailing the order

¶15

dated 14-12-2011 passed in Crl.M.P.No.96 of 2011.

¶16

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 – State. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even if the entire allegation of the prosecution is taken as true, no ingredients of the offences with which the petitioner has been charged are made out and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for discharge.

¶17

As could be seen from the material placed on record, the statements of two ladies, who were found with the petitioner, have been recorded during the course of investigation. They have stated before the police that they were being taken to Oman in a deceitful manner of providing employment. The trial Court has framed the charges and one witness has been examined in part. Such is the material brought on record and the stage at which the petitioner moved the application seeking discharge, I am of the view that the order impugned in the revision does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. However the Trial Court is directed to dispose of S.C.No.650 of 2010, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶19

B.Seshasayana Reddy, J

¶20

24^th January, 2012

¶21

Note:- Issue copy by 27-1-2012 (B/o.smr)

Kharusi Ali Salim Ali v. The State of Ap.,Through its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kharusi Ali Salim Ali v. The State of Ap.,Through its Public Prosecutor

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

Bashu Shyam Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lokaiah Patel, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chukkapalli Amar Kumar, Vs Meka Radhika

Kotha Srinivas , Ungrala Srinivas Vs State of Ap., through the Police CID Medak at

Lucky Enterprises, represented by its Proprietor, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ratna Infrastructure Products Pvt.Ltd., Vs M/s. Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.