K. Lakshmaiah Chowdary, Guntur Dist. Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P., Hyderabad, and Anr.

SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI

CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON Nos.1 1 9 6 2 an d 8 7 3 3 of 2 0 1 1

COMMON ORDER:

The criminal petitions are filed seeking for quash of the proceedings in CC.No.1098 of 2005 on the file of the First Class Munsif Magistrate, Bhimavaram, against the petitioners, who are A3 and A4 and A11 respectively.

¶5

Heard counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor, who takes notice for the first respondent.

¶6

The allegations in the complaint are very specific against all the accused. The allegations are that all the accused are habituated to cheating the public and have definite modus operandi of forging documents and project them as genuine documents, as such, the complainant was also cheated by the accused. After offering the property for sale to the complainant, the same set of accused approached another person and offered to sell the land to him and when the complainant met the said person, the said fact came to light. Hence, the nature of allegations would not entitle the accused for quash of proceedings and those are the matters, which are to be gone into at the time of trial and truth can be brought out only after due trial. Hence, this Court opines that it is not a fit case for quash of proceedings.

¶7

The criminal petitions are dismissed. The interim stay, granted earlier in CRLPMP.No.13479 of 2011 in CRLP.No.11962 of 2011 dated

¶8

2

¶9

24.11.2011 and CRLPMP.No.9434 of 2011 in CRLP.No.8733 of 2011 dated 21.09.2011, shall stand vacated. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶10

__________ T. RAJANI, J

¶11

December 12, 2017 DSK

K. Lakshmaiah Chowdary, Guntur Dist. v. the State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P., Hyderabad, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Lakshmaiah Chowdary, Guntur Dist. v. the State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P., Hyderabad, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Javvali Kavitha and 6 Others

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Konatham Manjula and 5 Others

Kunchamreddy Ramanamma and 4 Ors. Vs M/S.Trinity Travels and Anr.

Kolla Srinivas and 12 Others Vs State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P and 2 Others

The Apsrtc, and Another Vs S. Indira and 3 Others

S.Indira and 3 Others Vs the Apsrtc., and Another