Disposed

M.M.Ashraf Ali, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC16 Mar 2017CRLP/3595/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash proceedings in an FIR regarding unspecified offences, the Court directed the police to complete investigation within a month following an alleged compromise between parties and accepted the State Public Prosecutor's consent.

What did the court decide?

The Police of L.B.Nagar is directed to complete the investigation within a month and take appropriate decision either to close or to proceed the case further.

M.M.Ashraf Ali, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

TH E H ON’BLE SRI J USTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTH Y

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3595 of 20 12

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), is filed to quash the proceedings in FIR.No.375 of 2012 on the file of P.S., L.B. Nagar Law and Order, Rangareddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 307 and 509 r/ w 34 IPC.

¶5

The main dispute is with regard to right of the respondent to use the rope tied across the lane for drying washed cloths and it was questioned by the wife of complainant when the wife of Jahangir Ali i.e., Safiya put their wet clothes on that rope, all the petitioners allegedly trespassed into the house of the complainant and beat them indiscriminately etc.,

¶6

However, during hearing, learned counsel for petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that the matter was already compromised and in view of pendency of this Criminal Petition, the Police could not close the crime and thereby requested to direct the police to complete the investigation and permit both parties to compromise, if they compromised, and pass appropriate orders.

¶7

The learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana also accepted for the above proposal.

¶8

In view of the consent given by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, the Police of L.B.Nagar, Law and Order Police Station, Rangareddy District, is hereby directed to complete the investigation within a month since it is a crime of 2012 and

¶9

take appropriate decision either to close or to proceed the case further, in view of the alleged compromise between the parties.

¶10

With the above direction, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶11

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

¶12

shall stand dismissed.

¶13

__________________________ M. Sa tya n a r a ya n a Mu r th y, J

¶14

16^th March, 2017 eha

¶15

¶16

TH E H ON’BLE SRI J USTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTH Y

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3595 of 20 12 Dt.16.0 3.20 17

¶18

eh a

M.M.Ashraf Ali, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.M.Ashraf Ali, 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

Kola Sathibabu Vs The State of A.P

Daravath Mangilala Vs The State of Telangana

Thathineni Rajesh Vs The State of A.P

K.Badaris Vs The State of A.P

S.Neelam Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Manchikatla Satyanarayana Vs The State of A.P.