Dismissed

Kethireddy Narsimha Reddy v. The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Telangana HC23 Dec 2015CRLP/13735/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition filing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings for theft, the High Court held that material prima facie justified investigation. The petition for quashing was dismissed, but the SHO was directed not to arrest the accused until the investigation concluded.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition is dismissed; however, the Station House Officer is directed not to arrest the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 till completion of investigation.

Kethireddy Narsimha Reddy Vs The State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13735 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.123 of 2015 of Chigurumamidi Police Station, Karimnagar District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.

¶6

A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 and the second respondent is the de facto complainant. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioners herein entered into the land in Survey No.173 of Rekonda Village of Chigurumamidi Mandal and committed theft of 35 bags of paddy. A perusal of the record reveals that civil suits are pending between the parties. Whether the petitioners have committed the alleged offence or not will come to light during the course of investigation only.

¶7

It is needless to say that the court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in order to quash the criminal proceedings at the initial stage of investigation. The court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry to ascertain the truthfulness, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. It is a settled principle of law that the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle

¶8

a legitimate investigation. If the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offence much less the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, then this court can quash the proceedings in order to prevent abuse of process of court thereby to secure the ends of justice.

¶9

I have carefully perused the material available on record in order to ascertain

¶10

whether the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable thereby to quash the proceedings. The material available 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.

¶11

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in R.P.KAPOOR v. STATE OF PUNJAB, STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL, V.Y.JOSE V STATE OF GURAJAT AND TEEJA DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold.

¶12

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

¶13

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Station House Officer, Chigurumamidi Police Station, Karimnagar District, is hereby directed not to arrest the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.123 of 2015 till completion of investigation.

¶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

¶17

Rns

¶18

Date:23.12.2015

Kethireddy Narsimha Reddy v. The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kethireddy Narsimha Reddy v. The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

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

K.Mohan Rao, Vs Kummara Nagappa,]

Purumandla Satyanarayana Reddy Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

G. Durga Reddy Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

M/s S.H.L. v entures Vs State of Telangana, repby Public Prosecutor

Sri. Ponaganti Swaroopa Chary Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Smt Beepasha (A2) Vs The State of Telangana