Disposed

Pathakota Chinna Reddy, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC9 Mar 2015CRLP/1406/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition for quashing proceedings filed based on allegations of false assault arising from a land dispute, the Single Judge held that the matter is not fit for quashing at the admission stage after a charge sheet was filed but granted liberty to the petitioners to file a discharge application.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to file a discharge application; trial court directed to consider defence on merits.

Pathakota Chinna Reddy, Vs The State of A.P. — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1406 OF 2015

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

At the admission stage, the following order is passed.

¶4

It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the subject land was delivered to the petitioners in E.A.No. 512 of 2012 in E.P.No. 29 of 2006 in O.S.No. 165 of 2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur and since then they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and in this back drop of the facts, the allegations contained in the FIR and charge sheet to the effect that on 12.4.2014 at about 10.00 AM petitioners/A1 to A3 went along with their associates of 15 members to the same fields when LW-1 was attending agricultural work and abusing them in filthy language in the name of their caste and attacked them etc. facts are palpably false and they are invented only to implicate the petitioners/accused in a false case and continuation of proceedings in PRC No. 13 of 2014 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur, would amount to abuse of process of law and sought for quashment of proceedings.

¶5

It is seen that in this matter charge sheet has been filed and the matter is numbered as PRC No. 13 of 2014 pending on the file of II Additional Judicial Firs Class Magistrate, Proddatur for committal. Having regard to the stage of the matter, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. However, considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the subject land was delivered to the petitioners/accused in a civil litigation and the question of their threatening or attacking the respondent/complainant and their men in respect of the same land does not arise and the entire FIR and

¶6

charge sheet allegations are only false, this Court considers fit to give liberty to the petitioners/A1 to A3 to present a discharge application before the concerned court seeking for discharge from the case putting forth their defence in which case, the trial court shall take into consideration their defence plea and shall pass appropriate orders on merits.

¶7

With this observation, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶8

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶9

_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶10

Date: 09.03.2015 KA

Pathakota Chinna Reddy, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pathakota Chinna Reddy, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thiruvayapatti Mary Molidered , Rani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Abdul Ali Vs The State of Telangana

M.Alaga Raja Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. A.K. Mehtha, Vs M/s. Jacobs Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Bageli Musthafa, Vs The State of Telangana

S. Mahaboob Basha, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh