Allowed

T.L.Nayan Kumar, v. Salla Chandra Reddy

Telangana HC24 Jun 2014CRLP/1354/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Hyderabad quashed criminal proceedings, alleging offences under IPC Sections 387, 511, and 120(b), against a petitioner who issued a legal notice. The court held that absence of allegations against the petitioner and lack of prima facie material rendered the continuation of proceedings an abuse of process of law under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in CC.No. 386 of 2011 are quashed against the petitioner/A-4.

T.L.Nayan Kumar, Vs Salla Chandra Reddy — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

TUESDAY THE TWENTYFOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1354 OF 2012

¶6

Between: T.L. Nayan Kumar … Petitioner/A-4 V/s. Salla Chandra Reddy & Anr. … Respondents/Complainant Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Kishore Babu Yadala Counsel for Respondents : M/s.Indus Law Firm for R-1 Public Prosecutor for R-2

¶7

The court made the following : [order follows]

¶8

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1354 OF 2012

¶10

O R D E R :

¶11

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings in CC.No. 386 of 2011 on the file of IV-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, for offences under section 387, 511, 120 (b) IPC against petitioner, who is A-4 herein.

¶12

2. Heard both sides.

¶13

3. Advocate for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a

¶14

practicing Advocate and during his course of profession, he issued a legal notice to the defacto complainant i.e., first respondent herein on 09/9/2010 pertaining to a civil matter and also issued a paper publication in respect of the same subject matter on 10/9/2010 and the first respondent after receipt of notice issued a reply on 13/9/2010. It is submitted that allegation against petitioner is that the other accused i.e., A-2 sent message to the cell phone of defacto complainant to approach this petitioner to settle the issue amicably and there is no other allegation of any kind against petitioner attracting any penal provisions. It is further submitted that when the petitioner approached this court to quash FIR through Criminal Petition No. 10336 of 2010 this court while observing that there are no allegations in the complaint against petitioner herein therefore

¶15

directed the police not to arrest the petitioner till filing of charge sheet if any and the Police have not collected any fresh material against petitioner during investigation but filed charge sheet along with other accused attributing section 120 (B) IPC.

¶16

4. I have perused the material papers filed along with this criminal petition. Prosecution has examined five witnesses and out of them first witness is complainant himself, no other independent witnesses are examined by Police, the other witnesses are mediators and the Investigating Officer. In the FIR also the allegation is that A-2 threatened complainant to come for settlement and appear before the petitioner, other wise he has to meet with dire consequences. There are no specific allegations against petitioner and according to the submissions of counsel for petitioner, as the petitioner issued legal notice, he was also implicated in the case.

¶17

5. As seen from the material papers, except issuing legal notice on behalf of A-1, no other role is played by the petitioner. Further the threatening calls were alleged to have been given by A-2 and there is no allegation of any role or conspiracy by the petitioner for such threatening calls.

¶18

6. As rightly pointed by counsel for petitioner, when there is no prima facie material attracting any offence, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and therefore

¶19

this court by exercising powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. has to quash proceedings. I find some force in the arguments of advocate for petitioner, as there is no prima facie material attracting any offence against petitioner herein. Therefore, proceedings n CC.No. 386 of 2011 are liable to be quashed against petitioner.

¶20

7. For the above reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed,

¶21

quashing proceedings against petitioner/A-4.

¶22

___________________ JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .

¶23

24/06/2014 I s L

¶24

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶25

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1354 OF 2012

¶26

Circulation No. 129 Date:24/06/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 20^th Court Hall

T.L.Nayan Kumar, v. Salla Chandra Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.L.Nayan Kumar, v. Salla Chandra Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Satyananda Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

E.Thimmanna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vangapandu Srinivasu, Vs Vangapandu Aruna

Manepalli Allbert Jack Malick Singh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Gopi Shastri Vs State of Ap., Rep.through

K.Anil Kumar, Vs K.Vijaya , Vijayalakshmi