Dismissed

B.Bairagi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC12 Oct 2017CRLP/1027/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash an order allowing police to obtain specimen signatures. Court disposed of the petition at admission stage as the matter became infructuous following a police memo stating investigation was complete and charge sheet filed, rendering specimen signatures unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was disposed of and the order of the lower court was considered closed and infructuous.

B.Bairagi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1027 of 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in order, dated 27.01.2017, of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tekkali, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1504 of 2016 in Crime No.105 of 2016, wherein the lower Court allowed the petition, which was filed by the Inspector of Police, Tekkali Circle, seeking for securing the specimen signatures of the accused.

¶5

. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and with their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage. Perused the material available on record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the stage of hearing, brings to the notice of this Court that a memo was filed by the police in this case stating that the proceedings before the Court below are being postponed from time to time on the request of the Advocate for the accused and that meanwhile they have filed charge sheet after completion of investigation, and there is no need of getting specimen signatures of the accused.

¶7

The learned Public Prosecutor raises an objection with regard to the procedure to be followed in filing such memos, but however, since he does not dispute the fact of the said memo being filed by the police, the same can be considered.

¶8

In view of the memo filed by the police, any further orders in this criminal petition would become unnecessary as the matter becomes infructuous by virtue of the memo filed by the police stating that there

¶9

TR,J

¶10

¶11

is no necessity for obtaining the specimen signatures of the accused. Hence, the Court below can consider that the Crl.M.P.No.1504 of 2016 is closed and proceed on the memo filed by the police.

¶12

With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall

¶13

stand closed.

¶14

_______________________ JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶15

Date: 12^th October, 2017 KL

¶16

3 TR,J Crl.P.No.1027 of 2017

¶17

246

¶18

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1027 of 2017

¶20

Date: 12^th October, 2017

¶21

B.Bairagi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Bairagi 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

ThademRavinder, Vs The State of Telangana

Gattu Sarambai Krishna (A-1) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nalluri Satyanarayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kolla Veera Venkata Satya Narayana Murthy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Thakkallapally Ramu, Vs The State of Telangana State

Digyapogu Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana