Dismissed

K.Subhan Reddy v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Dec 2018CRLP/10768/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a criminal petition to quash cognizance proceedings due to the absence of the impugned cognizance order on record. The court held it could not express an opinion on merits without the order but directed the lower court to consider pending discharge applications.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition disposed of without expressing opinion on merits; Magistrate directed to consider pending discharge application under Section 245 Cr.P.C.

K.Subhan Reddy Vs the State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10768 OF 2018

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners 1 and 2 herein are accused in C.C.No.8 of

¶5

2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, which is outcome of the private complaint of the 2^nd respondent mentioning for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 506 IPC. The learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statements of two witnesses including the complainant as LW.1 and one E.Yella Reddy as LW.2 taken cognizance for the said offences, according to the petitioners. The petitioners are seeking to quash the said cognizance proceedings.

¶6

Heard both sides and perused the material on record and the decisions placed reliance by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Vesa Holdings Private Limited v. State of Kerala¹ , particularly at para-12, Suresh v. Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava² particularly paras 9, 10 and 12, K.L.E.Society and others v. Siddalingesh³ , where at para-7 referred the expression of the Apex Court in R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab⁴ and Punjab National Bank and others v. Surendra Prasad Sinha⁵ particularly para-5.

¶7

1 2015(8) SCC 293

¶8

2 2005(3) SCC 670

¶9

3 2008(4) SCC 541

¶10

4 AIR 1960 SC 866

¶11

5 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499

¶12

¶13

In fact, the impugnment if at all to the cognizance order, which is not before this Court to express any opinion, though, there is no quarrel on the legal proposition. In the absence of showing the cognizance order, this Court is not in a position to quash the proceedings as to what are the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance and on what material with reference to what documents.

¶14

Having regard to the above, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, without expressing any opinion on merits and if at all any discharge application filed by the petitioners/ accused before the lower Court invoking Section 245 Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same.

¶15

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶16

Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶17

Date: 10.12.2018 pab

K.Subhan Reddy v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Subhan Reddy v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Goenka Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lanka Suryanarayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T.Srinivas and Others Vs the State of Telangana Rep by P.P and Another

B.Siva Prasad Vs State of A.P

Mohd a..Hakeem and another Vs the State of Telangana and another

Itikala Amarendar Reddy Vs State of Telangana