Allowed

V.Chandrasekhar and 2 Others v. the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp and Another

Telangana HC23 Oct 2018CRLP/8652/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition seeking quashing of proceedings for forgery of a vakalat (signature of Dr. K. Nagi Reddy). Court allowed petition as proceedings were vexatious and inconsistent with investigation findings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed and proceedings in C.C. No. 278 of 2012 against petitioners quashed; miscellaneous applications closed.

V.Chandrasekhar and 2 Others Vs the State of A.P. Rep… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT JUSTI CE T.RAJANI

¶2

CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON No.8 6 5 2 OF 2 0 1 2

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed seeking for quash of the proceedings against the petitioners, who are A1 to A3, in C.C.No.278 of 2012 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa. The offences alleged are under Sections 465, 464 and 471 r/ w 34 and 109 IPC.

¶5

Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent. None appears for the 2^nd respondent in spite of notice.

¶6

The complaint is filed stating that the petitioners are Advocates, who accepted and attested the vakalat, by forging the signature of one Dr.K.Nagi Reddy, who is the person, who allegedly gave the vakalat to the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners. The police after due investigation filed final report stating that their case is false.

¶7

The counsel for the petitioners also brings to the notice of this court the order passed by the Bar Counsel of State of Andhra Pradesh holding that the petitioners are innocent. The counsel also submits that the said Nagi Reddy, who is no more, has also stated before the police that he himself signed on the vakalat given to 1^st and 2^nd petitioners. Against the said final report, a protest petition was filed and the court took cognizance of the alleged offences on the said protest petition.

¶8

¶9

But absolutely, there seems to be no additional material, which would suggest that the petitioners have committed the alleged offences. Moreover, when the charge sheet discloses that said Dr.K.Nagireddy has made statement that he himself signed on the vakalat, there cannot be any grievance for the 2^nd respondent herein to file the complaint.

¶10

In view of the above, this court opines that this complaint can be considered as having filed only as a part of a vexatious litigation and hence, continuation of further proceedings against the petitioners would only result in abuse of process of law.

¶11

With the above observations, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.278 of 2012 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.

¶12

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

¶13

___________________ JUSTI CE T. RAJANI

¶14

October 23, 2018 LMV

V.Chandrasekhar and 2 Others v. the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Chandrasekhar and 2 Others v. the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp and Another

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

Sri Bonumukkala Poli Reddy, Vs Dadi Sridhar and Another

Rangavajjula Subrahmanya Sastry and Anothers Vs the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P

Rangavajjula Subrahmanya Sastry and Anothers Vs the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P and Anothers

D.Ameer Basha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Thamalampudi Satyanarayana Reddy and Another Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp and Another

Smt. Pataan Jareena, (A-1), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh