Dismissed

Borru Siva Naga Raju v. The State of Telengana

Telangana HC22 Apr 2015CRLP/3067/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court, dealing with a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by an accused in the same crime as other parties, applied the principles of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to direct the police to follow Section 41-A CrPC and dismissed the petition without adjudicating on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Well HEX direction to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C.; instant petition dismissed.

Borru Siva Naga Raju Vs The State of Telengana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶2

Criminal Petition No. 3067 of 2015

¶3

Order:

¶4

The instant petition is filed, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’), by one Borru Siva Naga Raju, who is arraigned as A-2 in Crime No.393 of 2014 of Bowenpally Police Station, Hyderabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 468, 471, 379, 506 read with Section 120(b) IPC, requesting to quash the said proceedings.

¶5

2. The material placed on record reveals that the petitioner herein is working along with A-1 and A-3. A-1 is the Sales Officer, whereas the petitioner/A-2 is the Assistant Sales Officer in M/s. Madura Coats Private Limited, at Hyderabad. They have been performing their respective duties and the petitioner was assisting the Sales Officer in discharging his duties. The second respondent, in the complaint filed on 15.09.2014, levelled serious allegations of falsification of accounts and fabrication of documents by forging the signatures of the customers as a token of receipt of material on invoices as if they were signed by the genuine customers while accepting the delivery of material with the connivance of others and the cash collected from the parties was misappropriated by the petitioner and the accused.

¶6

3. Heard both sides.

¶7

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed a copy of

¶8

the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.16138 of 2014 filed by the other two accused i.e., A-1 and A-3. While dismissing the said Criminal Petition, this Court directed the Station House Officer, Bowenpally Police Station, Hyderabad District, to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41A Cr.P.C in the above crime basing on the decision of the

¶9

Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Biha r^[1] . 5. The present petitioner being A-2, a similar direction is given to the effect that the Station House Officer, Bowenpally Police Station, Hyderabad District, to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., in the instant crime i.e., Crime No.393 of 2014 as per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar’s case (1 supra).

¶10

6. With the above direction, the instant Criminal Petition is dismissed. The copy of the order submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner shall form part of record.

¶11

7. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶12

_____________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J

¶13

Date: 22.04.2015 Nsr

¶14

[1] 2014(8) SCALE 250

Borru Siva Naga Raju v. The State of Telengana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Borru Siva Naga Raju v. The State of Telengana

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

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Golkonda srinivas

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs Dr.S.Annapurna

The Depot Manager, Vs Vadlamudi Subba Rao

Y. Prabhakar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs Kistapati Ramaiah , Ramana Reddy

Jai Prakash Sharma Vs Smt. Gayatri Sharma, w/o Sarvesh Sharma