Dismissed

Vema Reddy Venku Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC18 Dec 2015CRLP/13557/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a S.L.P. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of criminal proceedings, the Court held that proceedings cannot be quashed at the initial investigation stage. While agreeing allegations are prima facie sufficient for investigation, the Court is not justified in going into merits. The petition was dismissed, but the Court directed the SHO not to arrest the petitioner until investigation con

What did the court decide?

Directing the SHO, Totapalli Gudur Police Station, not to arrest the petitioner/A.6 till completion of the investigation.

Vema Reddy Venku Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.13557 of 2015

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A.6 in Crime No.138 of 2015 on the file of the Station House Officer, Totapalli Gudur Police Station, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 341, 506, 143 and 109 read with 149 I.P.C.

¶4

2. The contention of Sri M.R.K.Chowdary, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, is two fold: (1) The third respondent taking advantage of the presence of the petitioner in India filed a false case with an ulterior motive, (2) Even if the allegations made in the complaint are ex facie taken to be true and correct, the petitioner has not committed the offences alleged.

¶5

3. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is not the stage to go into the merits of the main case.

¶6

4. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is accused No.6 and the third respondent is the de facto complainant in Crime No.138 of 2015.

¶7

5. As per the allegations made in the complaint, on 22.11.2015, the petitioner instigated the other accused, who in turn prevented the tractor driver from ploughing the land of the third respondent. It is further alleged that the petitioner along with others threatened the third respondent with dire consequences.

¶8

6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the third respondent are own brothers. Whether the petitioner has come to India for a short visit or not will come to light during the course of investigation. Whether the petitioner has committed the alleged offences or not also

¶9

will come to light during the course of investigation. If this Court expresses any opinion touching the merits of the main case, the same may cause prejudice to one of the parties to the proceedings.

¶10

7. While exercising the inherent power 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 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 is prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint.

¶11

8. 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 the initial stage of the investigation.

¶12

9. 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.

¶13

10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to direct the Station House Officer, Totapalli Gudur Police Station, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, not to arrest the petitioner/A.6 in Crime No.138 of 2015 till completion of the investigation.

¶14

11. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 12. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶15

________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

¶16

Date: 18.12.2015 Ivd

¶17

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

Vema Reddy Venku Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vema Reddy Venku Reddy 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

Khaja Rayeesuddin, Vs The State of Telangana

Kannekati Sreenivasachary Vs The State of a.P.,rep.,Pp

Modigari Poli Setty Vs The State of a.P.,rep.,Pp

Gurram Krishna Chaitanya, Vs The State of Telangana

Matta Anand Paul Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Jayanthilal Bagrecha Vs The State of a.P.,rep.,Pp