Allowed

P.S.Sreedharan, Mugapair West, Chennai and 2 Others v. the State of a.P., Rep.by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and Anr.

Telangana HC12 Oct 2018CRLP/12366/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in a trial court for an alleged utterances offence under Section 500 IPC. The court held that continuing proceedings would be an abuse of law.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; all further proceedings in C.C. No.205 of 2011 quashed and miscellaneous petitions closed.

P.S.Sreedharan, Mugapair West, Chennai and 2 Others Vs… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.12366 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the Petitioners/A-1 to A-3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.205 of 2011, pending on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the trial Court’), registered for the offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the 1^st respondent – State. None appears on behalf of Sri T.Natraj, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent – de-facto complainant.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations in the complaint are that the petitioners abused the complainant stating that he is related with Viatnamese lady and that they are spreading the said rumor among the relatives. Learned counsel further submits that a defamation suit in O.S. No.112 of 2010, filed by the complainant against the petitioners, on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, stands dismissed for default on 27.04.2015.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the offence, according to the complainant, took place at Chennai, while the complaint is filed at Hyderabad. Apart from the above, the contents of the complaint show that such allegations are made in order to break the complainant’s peaceful relationship with his wife and ultimately take custody of his children.

¶8

Thus, it is clear that the said allegations are not made with an intention to defame the complainant but are made in order to break his relationship with his wife and take custody of his children. Moreover, the allegations seem to have been made only over phone.

¶9

TR,J Crl.P. No.12366 of 2011

¶10

¶11

Hence, in view of the above, this Court opines that continuation of further proceedings against the petitioners would result in sheer abuse of process of law.

¶12

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and all further proceedings against the Petitioners/A-1 to A-3 in C.C. No.205 of 2011, pending on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

¶13

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶14

___________________ T.RAJANI, J Date: 12.10.2018. Dsh

¶15

TR,J Crl.P. No.12366 of 2011

¶16

¶17

SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶18

293

¶19

23102018

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.12366 OF 2011

¶21

Date. 12.10.2018

¶22

DSH

P.S.Sreedharan, Mugapair West, Chennai and 2 Others v. the State of a.P., Rep.by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.S.Sreedharan, Mugapair West, Chennai and 2 Others v. the State of a.P., Rep.by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and Anr.

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

M/s. Shriram Life Insurance Co. LTd., Vs The State of A.P.

Smt.M.Hymavathi, Amberpet, Hyd., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp., and Anr.

T.S.Sudhakar and Anothers Vs State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P and Anothers

M.S.Ranjan (A-10 Vs State -

Vallabhaneni Venkata Chowdary, and Another, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

A.v.Ramana Vs the State of A.P. Rep by Its P.P and Another