Dismissed

Nirmalya Mukherjee, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC29 Mar 2016CRLP/4200/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petitioner sought quashing of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Allegations were serious. Appeal rejected; investigation to continue without arrest, but police may issue notices. Accused must appear; failure allows recalling order. Petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed police to complete investigation without arrest; police may issue notice for appearance. Order recalled if accused fails to appear. Petition disposed of.

Nirmalya Mukherjee, Vs State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

Criminal Petition No.4200 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings initiated against the petitioners/ accused in Crime No.242 of 2015 of Mangalhat Police Station, Hyderabad registered for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 498 A, 323, 506 and 120 B read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record.

¶6

Admittedly, a complaint was lodged by the second respondent/de facto complainant against the petitioners wherein specific allegations are made against the petitioners, the truth or otherwise of which can be determined only after due investigation by the investigating agency and the same cannot be determined at the investigation stage.

¶7

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners apprehend arrest in view of pendency of the above crime.

¶8

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the nature of offences alleged against the petitioners are serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings against the petitioners/accused. However, in view of submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the concerned Police is directed to complete the investigation without arresting the petitioners/accused and file the

¶9

final report in accordance with law. In the event of necessity, the police concerned are at liberty to issue a notice to the petitioners for the purpose of investigation and on receipt of such notice the petitioners/accused shall appear before the police and cooperate with the investigating agency. In the event of failure on the part of the petitioners/accused to appear before the police on receipt of such notice, the police are at liberty to approach this Court for recalling the present order.

¶10

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶11

_______________ RAJA ELANGO, J

¶12

Date: 29-03-2016

¶13

Ksn

Nirmalya Mukherjee, v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmalya Mukherjee, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Ayesha Fatima Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Gudiwada Pavan Kumar Vs The State of a.P.,rep.,Pp

Talamunchi Veerabhadraiah Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Syed Abdul Gaffar Vs The State of Telangana

Pln Murthy Vs The State of A.P

Made Lakshmanarao Vs State of A.P. and Another