Dismissed

Madhala Chandra Mohan , Chandramouli v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC26 Nov 2014CRLP/6605/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed petition to quash criminal proceedings under Cr.P.C. Section 482. Queried if case fit for quash per R.P.Kapoor and Bhajan Lal principles. Directed police not to arrest accused till investigation concludes; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Police directed not to arrest petitioner till completion of investigation or filing of final report.

Madhala Chandra Mohan , Chandramouli Vs The… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6605 of 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.33 of 2010 of Duttaluru Police Station, SPSR Nellore District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 IPC.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶5

A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is sole accused and second respondent, who is a Police Constable, is de facto complainant in Crime No.33 of 2010. As per the allegations made in the complaint, on 30.6.2010 the petitioner threatened the second respondent with dire consequences, abused him in filthy language and prevented him from discharging his duties.

¶6

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.

¶7

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and [1] also the principle enunciated in R.P.Kapoor v State of Punjab and [2] State of Haryana v. Bhajan La l , I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the concerned

¶9

Police may be directed not to arrest the petitioners till completion of investigation. A perusal of the record reveals that interim stay was granted by this court on 12.7.2010 and the same has been in force till today. In view of the earlier orders passed by this court, the Station House Officer, Duttaluru P.S., is hereby directed not to arrest the petitioner/accused in Crime No.33 of 2010 till completion of investigation or filing of final report.

¶10

With the above direction, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the criminal petition, shall stand closed.

¶11

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J November 26, 2014. YS [1] AIR 1960 SC 866 [2] AIR 1992 SC 604

Madhala Chandra Mohan , Chandramouli v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhala Chandra Mohan , Chandramouli v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Sangoju Narsimha Charry, Vs The State of A.P.

Dr. K.Harini, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Veenam Radhika Vs The State of A.P.

Mohd Sajeed, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Fiazuddin Quadri, Vs The State of A.P.

Farzana Begum, Vs The State of Telangana