Dismissed

Uriti Seetharam v. Potluri Venkateswara rao

Telangana HC24 Apr 2015CRLP/3534/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petitioner filed a petition under Sections 482 and 156(3) CrPC to quash an FIR arising from land disputes involving specific performance of an agreement. The Single Judge held it was not a fit case to quash at the investigation stage but directed adherence to Section 41(A) CrPC procedures regarding arrest.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; but outlined direction for Investigating Officer to follow Section 41(A) Code of Criminal Procedure.

Uriti Seetharam Vs Potluri Venkateswara rao — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3534 OF 2015

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Code’) seeking to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.71 of 2015 of Visakhapatnam IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, against the petitioner, who is arraigned as sole accused in the said crime, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 323, 406 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code (fort short, ‘the I.P.C’) on the complaint made by respondent No.1 herein before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, which was referred under Section 156(3) of the Code to Police.

¶4

2. The complaint averments would show certain land disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.1, pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding (for short, ‘the M.O.U’) dated 26.10.2003 between respondent No.1 herein as First party and one Namburi Venkata Surya Varaha Ramakrishna Rao and the petitioner herein on the other hand as Second Party, and also pursuant to the General Power of Attorney executed by respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioner on 26.08.2006 to sell the plots, retained by the complainant, bearing Nos.1, 3, 5 and 8 to the extent of 5000 square yards.

¶5

3. It has also come up during the course of arguments that a civil suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance of agreement of sale concerning plot Nos.6, 7, 15, 16, 17 and 26 against respondent No.1 herein and the matter is pending. At the stage, when respondent No.1 had to depose as D.W.1 in the said civil suit, having come down to India, he got drafted the instant

¶6

complaint and filed the same against the petitioner alone leveling the aforesaid offences.

¶7

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the fact that the M.O.U was entered in the year 2003 and the General Power of Attorney entered in 2006, respondent No.1 having kept quiet throughout, and when he apprehended that the suit filed, for specific performance, by the petitioner herein would go against him, he got prepared the complaint and filed with the Court, which was referred, under Section 156(3) of the Code, to the police concerned. The learned counsel further submits that none of the allegations mentioned in the complaint would attract the alleged offences against the petitioner, and, therefore, it is a clear abuse of process of law, and, hence, sought to quash the proceedings.

¶8

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the request of learned counsel for petitioner contending, the very fact that the respondent No.1 has been signing all the documents in favour of the intending purchasers, which is also not in dispute. As the learned counsel for petitioner admits that respondent No.1 cannot be said unaware of the things, and, in fact, he has pointed out relevant portion in the complaint occurring at page Nos.9 and 10 in the material papers.

¶9

6. On perusal of the material papers on record, and since the matter is at the stage of investigation, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings based on probabilities in arriving at that there is an abuse of process of law.

¶10

7. The learned counsel for petitioner urges the Court to stay the investigation including arrest of the petitioner. To the extent of directing the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure as

¶11

contemplated under the provisions of Section 41(A) of the Code in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another^[1] , the request of the learned counsel for petitioner is acceded to.

¶12

8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed with the above directions.

¶13

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the petition, stand disposed of.

¶14

_______________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J

¶15

Date: 24.04.2015 MVA

¶16

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3534 OF 2015

¶18

Dt. 24.04.2015

¶19

MVA

¶20

[1] 2014 (2) ALT (Crl.) 457 SC

Uriti Seetharam v. Potluri Venkateswara rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uriti Seetharam v. Potluri Venkateswara rao

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

Smt. Bochula Ratnamma, W/o Devadas, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Hil Limited, a Company incorporated under Vs The State of Telangana.

Dr. T.Prabhavathi, Vs The Station House Officer

Kum.Yasneen Khanam, Vs N.Sailoo

Kampati Ramulu, Vs The State of Telangana

Boyalakuntla Khaja Bi Vs The State of A.P.