Disposed

Ravula Venkat , Venkateshwarlu v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Mar 2018CRLP/3462/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash proceedings for sexual assault and POCSO offences. Court held investigation was pending and not a fit case for quashing but directed adherence to Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Petition not quashed as investigation pending; IO directed to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C.; petitioner to cooperate.

Ravula Venkat , Venkateshwarlu Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3462 of 2018

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.44 of 2018 of Huzurabad Police Station, Karimnagar District, registered against him for the offences under Section 354-B I.P.C. and Section 8 of POCSO Act.

¶5

Investigation is reported to be pending.

¶6

The brief facts of the case as depicted from the complaint are that on 23-2-2018 when the complainant and his family members went to agricultural fields and his minor daughter was at home, at that time, the accused went to their house and seeing her alone, made sexual assault on her by threatening her.

¶7

Investigation is reported to be pending.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier, the petitioner lodged a report before State Human Rights Commission on 28-6-2017 against Circle Inspector of Police, Huzurabad District and as a counter blast, the said Police Officer manipulated a false complaint against the petitioner through the defacto complainant and there is no truth in it.

¶9

Learned Counsel would further submit that there is an inordinate delay of more than one week in lodging F.I.R. which falsifies the complaint allegations.

¶10

¶11

Having regard to the fact that there is a prima facie accusation against the accused and investigation is under way, it is not a fit case to quash proceedings at this stage. Hence, investigation shall lead to a logical end to unearth the truth. However, considering the nature of the offence i.e., Section 354 I.P.C. is punishable upto 7 years and section 8 of POCSO Act is punishable upto 5 years, the Investigating Officer is directed to strictly follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41 A Cr.P.C. towards the petitioner/accused during the course of investigation and the petitioner is directed to cooperate with the investigating agency for smooth completion of investigation. This Criminal Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶12

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

¶13

___________________________ JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶14

Dated 21^st March, 2018. Dvs

¶15

¶16

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3462 of 2018

¶18

Dated 21^st March, 2018

¶19

Dvs

Ravula Venkat , Venkateshwarlu v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravula Venkat , Venkateshwarlu v. State of Telangana

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

Shonti Shiva Kumar, Vs Shonti Permeela , Jhansi

Karru Gopaiah, Vs the State of A.P

M. Premadass Vs State of Telangana

Dr. Dola Rama Venkata Kumar Vs the State of A.P.

Mohmadh Rafee, Vs Shaik Beebi Ayesha

Smt.Hemalatha Vs the State of Telangana