In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Single Judge dismissed the application to quash FIRs for offences under Sections 354 and 384 IPC, finding them fit for investigation but directing the SHO not to arrest the accused without following Section 41A Cr.P.C. procedures.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1180 of 2010
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.8 of 2010 of Nandyal Taluk Police Station, Kurnool District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 384 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent filed a false case against the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie constitute the offences alleged.
A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is accused and second respondent is defacto complainant in Crime No.8 of 2010. As per the allegations made in the complaint, on 12.1.2010 the petitioner went to the house of second respondent and abused her in filthy language. It is further alleged that the petitioner has attempted to outrage her modesty.
The court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint only while deciding the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry to ascertain reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint at the initial stage of investigation. The material placed on record is prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in R.P.Kapoor v State of Punjab and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the concerned Police may be directed not to arrest the petitioner till completion of investigation. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar, the Station House Officer, Nandyal Taluk P.S., Kurnool District, is hereby directed not to arrest the petitioner/accused in Crime No.8 of 2010 till completion of investigation or filing of final report, without following the procedure as contemplated under Section 41A Cr.P.C.
With the above direction, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the criminal petition, shall stand closed.
T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J
November 10, 2014. YS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 354 and 384 IPC can be quashed at the threshold under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the police should arrest the accused pending investigation under Section 41A Cr.P.C.
Whether the allegations in the complaint prima facie reveal an offence warranting investigation
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapoor v. State of PunjabReferred¶7
R.P.Kapoor v State of Punjab
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶7
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
Arnesh Kumar v. State of BiharRelied on¶8
Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner/Accused
Second Respondent
T.SUNIL CHOWDARY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
