Dismissed

Smt.M.Rangamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC25 Aug 2014CRLP/9872/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings alleging civil dispute. Court noted pending civil suits but held that mere pendency does not bar criminal proceedings where material exists. Proceedings were not quashed, interim stay on arrest was affirmed, and direction to SHO not to arrest till investigation completion was issued.

What did the court decide?

Direction to SHO to not arrest petitioners during investigation or till filing of report.

Smt.M.Rangamma, Vs The State of Andhra… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9872 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A.1 to A.5 in Crime No.248 of 2010 of Shamirpet Police Station, Cyberabad District.

¶5

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence much less the offences alleged. He further submitted that the lis between the parties is purely civil in nature.

¶6

The learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the complaint constitute the alleged offences.

¶7

A perusal of the record reveals that the second respondent filed a complaint on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 405, 415, 441 and 503 read with 120B I.P.C., who in turn forwarded the same to the concerned Station House Officer (SHO). On receipt of the complaint, the SHO, Shamirpet registered a case in Crime No.248 of 2010 under Sections 405, 415, 441 and 503 read with 120B I.P.C.

¶8

As per the allegations made in the complaint, the second respondent purchased an extent of Ac.6.00 cents of land from late P.Narasimha Raju and M.Samba Murthy Raju under two registered sale deeds. The petitioners made an attempt to dispossess the second respondent from the land purchased by her. The second respondent filed a private complaint in the year 2010. The petitioners have filed O.S.No.525 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District for declaration to set aside the sale deeds. The petitioners also filed O.S.No.619 of 2011 on

¶9

the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District for partition in which the second respondent is a party. The second respondent filed O.S.No.789 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District against the petitioners to declare the G.P.A. executed in favour of petitioner Nos.3 to 5 as null and void.

¶10

A perusal of the record reveals that civil suits are pending between the parties. There is no doubt the civil Court alone has right to decide the rights of the parties. If there is any element of criminality involved, mere pendency of the civil suit is not a bar to initiate criminal proceedings. While deciding the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint only. The Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint at the initial stage of the investigation. Whether the petitioners have committed the alleged offences or not will come in light during the course of investigation. The material available on record prima facie sufficient to conduct investigation in this case.

¶11

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 considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this point of time.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the concerned Station House Officer may be directed not to arrest the petitioners during the course of investigation.

¶13

A perusal of the record reveals that this Court granted interim stay on 14.10.2011 and the same has been in force till today.

¶14

In view of the earlier orders passed by this Court and also the nature of the lis involved in this case, I am inclined to direct the Station

¶15

House Officer, Shamirpet not to arrest the petitioners/ A.1 to A.5 in Crime No.248 of 2010 till completion of the investigation or filing of the report.

¶16

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶17

________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

¶18

Date: 25.08.2014 Ivd

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9872 of 2011

¶21

Date: 25.08.2014

¶22

Ivd

¶23

[1] AIR 1960 SC 866

¶24

[2] AIR 1992 SC 604

Smt.M.Rangamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.M.Rangamma, 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

M/s. Matuthi Travels , Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Madakam Venkateswara Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Narsimhulu Vs Smt. Sujatha

P.Mahesam, (A2) Vs Smt. P.Madhavi

D.D.M.S.S.Srinivas, Vs The Asst. Divisional Engineer

Bijjam Purushotham Reddy, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its P.P., High Court of A.P.