Dismissed

S. Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Laxnia Reddy, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC30 Apr 2015CRLP/3635/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR for cheating and criminal intimidation. The court held the matter is justiciable and there is prima facie material for investigation, as the accused failed to produce the alleged bukti document. However, the female petitioner was granted immunity from arrest.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition dismissed; Station House Officer directed not to arrest the 2nd petitioner (female accused).

S. Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Laxnia… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3635 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Code’) by the petitioners, who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.264 of 2015 of Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C., requesting to quash the proceedings against them in the said crime.

¶5

2. The facts would reveal that the 2^nd respondent, who is the de facto complainant, paid Rs.3,00,000/- as loan to the petitioners, who are builders and on their promise that they would sell a part of land and some time thereafter, they executed notarized document concerning an extent of 120 square yards in Survey No.908 of Khaitalapur and subsequently, he found that it was already sold away and when he approached the petitioners and questioned them, they went on impressing upon him that they would take care of protecting his interest and ultimately evaded to return the amount and that is how the complaint was made and registered.

¶6

3. Heard both sides.

¶7

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2^nd respondent-de facto complainant was the tenant of the petitioners and since the petitioners asked the 2^nd respondent to vacate the tenanted premises, false case is foisted against them, and, therefore, sought to quash the F.I.R. against them.

¶8

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the request.

¶9

6. The said notarized document is not filed into the Court and F.I.R. alone is available on record. Since the document itself is available as represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who has gone through it, the abuse of process of law does not arise to quash the F.I.R., as there is material prima facie sufficient to investigate into the alleged offences.

¶10

7. Therefore, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, in view of the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the 2^nd petitioner being a woman, to the extent of 2^nd petitioner, the Station House Officer, Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad, is directed not to arrest her and she shall cooperate with the investigating agency for smooth completion of investigation.

¶11

8. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this petition, shall stand closed.

¶12

A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J

¶13

30^th April, 2015

¶14

siva

S. Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Laxnia Reddy, v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Laxnia Reddy, v. State of Telangana

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

S. Bhaskar Reddy , Basava Reddy Vs The State of Telangana Through the Public Procesutor

Sai Karunamayee, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep by Publice Prosecutor

Mr.M.v.Srinivas Rao,S/o,Madhava Rao, Vs The Inspector of Police

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs N. Jyothi

S. Srinivasa Chary Vs Mohd. Majid

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Shabana Begum