Dismissed

Kandragunta Ramcharan v. The State of Ap.

Telangana HC19 Mar 2013CRLP/2160/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash investigation over alleged attempted murder, the court dismissed the petition. It held that insufficient ingredients for Section 307 IPC do not warrant quashing, and the accused should raise such defenses in a bail application.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to raise contention regarding the offense sections in a bail application.

Kandragunta Ramcharan Vs The State of Ap. — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2160 OF 2013

¶3

19th March, 2013

¶4

Between: Kandragunta Ramcharan … Petitioner V/s. The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., High Court Buildings, Hyderabad and another … Respondents

¶5

The Court made the following: (Order follows next page)

¶6

O R D E R :

¶7

This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the investigation in Crime No.34 of 2013 of Sanath

¶8

Nagar Police Station, Cyberabad, Hyderabad.

¶9

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.3 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

¶10

3. Basing on the report lodged by the second respondent/de facto complainant, the Station House Officer, Sanath Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, registered a case in Crime No. 34 of 2013 against the petitioner and eight others for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer filed a memo before the learned Magistrate seeking to alter the section of law to one under Section 307 I.P.C. and accordingly it was altered.

¶11

4. The contents of the report lodged by the second respondent with the police are as follows:

¶12

On 15.01.2013 at 8 p.m. while the second respondent was at Pochamma temple, the petitioner and others, keeping the old differences in mind, quarreled with him and beat him with hands and cricket stumps on his face. The second respondent sustained bleeding injuries.

¶13

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ accused No.3 would submit that the allegations mentioned in the First Information Report do not attract the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and the second respondent only sustained simple injuries. According to the learned counsel, the police only to make the offence nonbailable and triable by Sessions Court, filed a memo into the Court to

¶14

alter the section of law to one under Section 307 I.P.C.

¶15

6. The allegations mentioned in the First Information Report discloses commission of offence by the petitioner/accused No.3 and other accused. Therefore, even if the allegations do not attract the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C., the investigation cannot be either quashed or stayed.

¶16

7. The petitioner is said to be a student of engineering. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if he is detained in jail on the ground that he committed the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. along with others, his career will be ruined. As to this, I would like to state that the petitioner can raise the contention that the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not at all attracted, in the application, if any, proposed to be filed on his behalf seeking anticipatory bail application or regular bail. But this Court is not supposed to quash or stay the entire investigation on the ground that the ingredients in the First Information Report do not attract the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C.

¶17

8. The Criminal Petition is, therefore, dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner/accused No.3 to raise his contention before the Court concerned in the bail application to be filed by him to the effect that the entire ingredients in the First Information Report do not attract the offence punishable under section 307 I.P.C. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.1877 of 2013 shall stand dismissed.

¶18

R.KANTHA RAO, J

¶19

Date: 19.3.2013 ssv/va

Kandragunta Ramcharan v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandragunta Ramcharan v. The State of Ap.

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

Ilyas Ahmed Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ramineni Krishna Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dontha Hima Bindu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Dayakar Reddy Vs State of a.P., rep. through the P.P.

Sri Avinash Kumar , Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Manoharlal Gupta, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh