Partly allowed

P. Satyanarayana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC29 Sept 2016CRLP/13943/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the F.I.R. alleging no material against their complicity. The single judge stayed their arrests subject to summons for interrogation but dismissed the prayer to quash the F.I.R. due to ongoing investigation.

What did the court decide?

Staying the arrest of petitioners subject to appearing for interrogation upon summons; disposing of the petition without quashing the F.I.R.

P. Satyanarayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13943 OF 2016

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The present petition is filed to quash F.I.R.No.62 of 2016, dated 29.03.2016, of P.S. Hanuman Junction, Krishna District.

¶4

The petitioners, who are figuring as accused Nos.4 and 5, respectively, in the aforesaid crime, alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 417 and 376 (2) (n) I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is no allegation connecting the complicity of the petitioners herein, either in the complaint or in the statement of the daughter of the de facto complainant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the concerned Magistrate. According to the learned counsel, the statement would refer to only accused Nos.1 to 3, who were already arrested and sent for judicial remand.

¶6

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the request.

¶7

The case is at investigation stage. Unless the investigation is completed, there cannot be any chance for the investigating agency to arrive at whether the offences levelled against the present petitioners are without any material or otherwise, to file a final report against them. At this stage, it is difficult to hold that there is no material at all

¶8

against the petitioners, so as to quash the F.I.R. However, only one factor weighs with the present petitioners, that being, in Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, made by the daughter of the de facto complainant, only the names of petitioners have been referred to, but not the details of overt acts relating to them.

¶9

Be that as it may, only to the extent of arrest of the petitioners by the investigating agency is stayed, subject to condition that they shall appear as and when the investigating agency summons them to appear for interrogation purpose.

¶10

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶11

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition,

¶12

shall stand closed.

¶13

___________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J September 29, 2016. MD

P. Satyanarayana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Satyanarayana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Goel Tubes Agencies Vs Thakur M.Hinglaj Singh

M. Chenchaiah Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

K. Harish Babu Vs The State of Telangana

Bogadala Chitra Vs The State of Telangana

Kola Ramulu Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Poloju Sampurna Chary Vs The State of Telangana