Partly allowed

Locherla Venkatesh v. The State

Telangana HC14 Nov 2014CRLP/2020/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under the Handlooms Act regarding extra weft design production. It held the case was not fit for quashing at the investigation stage based on prima facie allegations and granted a direction not to arrest the petitioner until investigation completed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed not to be arrested by SHO Hindupur I Town till completion of investigation or filing of report; Criminal Petition otherwise dismissed.

Locherla Venkatesh Vs The State — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2020 of 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.52 of 2008 of Hindupur I Town Police Station, Anantapur District registered for the offences under Sections 5 and 10 of the Handlooms (Reservation of Articles for Production) Act, 1985.

¶4

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an employee and not the owner of the shop. He further submitted that there is a delay in lodging the complaint.

¶5

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie constitute the offences alleged.

¶6

A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is the sole accused and the second respondent is the de facto complainant in Crime No.52 of 2008.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, on 27.12.2007, the concerned officials inspected the premises of the petitioner and found that the petitioner was producing silk sarees with extra weft design in contravention of the provisions of the Handlooms (Reservation of Articles for Production) Act.

¶8

Whether the petitioner is the employee or owner of the shop will come in light during the course of investigation. While deciding the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint only. The Court is not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint at the initial stage of investigation. The material placed before the Court i s prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the

¶9

complaint.

¶10

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in R.P.Kapoor v. [1] [2] State of Punja b and State of Haryana v. Bhajanla l , I am of the view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at the initial stage of the investigation.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the concerned Station House Officer may be directed not to arrest the petitioner till completion of the investigation.

¶12

A perusal of the record reveals that this Court granted interim stay on 05.03.2010 and the same has been in force till date.

¶13

In view of the earlier orders passed by this Court, the Station House Officer, Hindupur I Town is hereby directed not to arrest the petitioner/accused in Crime No.52 of 2008 till completion of the investigation or filing of the report.

¶14

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶15

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶16

T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 14.11.2014 Ivd

¶17

[1] AIR 1960 SC 866 [2] AIR 1992 SC 604

Locherla Venkatesh v. The State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Locherla Venkatesh v. The State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Venkatamma Vs Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University

S.Narendra, Vs Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University

Ch.Rosaiah Vs M.D.,Apsrtc.,Musheerabad.

Nand Kishore Mohan Lal Agarwal Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Y. Gopi Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.a.Hameeduddin, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh