Dismissed

Dr.Pothireddy Surendranath Reddy v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC14 Sept 2020CRLP/1140/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings for an offence under Section 506 IPC. The court held that specific overt acts existed and other trials were pending, making the matter unsuitable for a Section 482 petition. Liberty was not granted to approach the trial court separately.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. No liberty was granted to approach the trial court for discharge.

Dr.Pothireddy Surendranath Reddy Vs The State of… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1140 0F 2020

¶6

Between

¶7

Pl .lg!hir_eqqy-^{SurendranathReddy, S/o. Obulreddy,Aged.37 years,Occ: Doctor,} R/o.H.No.2-226-CA, Chinna Chowk, Srinivasa Nagar, fadala District, A.p.,

¶8

... PET|T|ON ERJACCUS ED AND

¶9

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, through P.S. Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad District

¶10

2 E. Suryanarayana Reddy @ Surudu, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Aged 63 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No.21and 22,MLA & MP Colony, Road No.10 C Gayathri Hills' HYderaba

¶11

..RESPoNDENT.

¶12

Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings of the charge sheet in C.C. No. 376 of 2018 in F.l.R.No.455 of 2017 against the petitioner/ Accused on the file of the XVll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad

¶13

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2020

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be^pleased to stay all the proceedings including appearance in C.C. No. 376 of 2018 in F.l.R.No.455 of 2017 against the petitioner/ Accused on the file of the XVll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad

¶15

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lVemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Pulla Rao Yellanki, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Pubiic Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE^K.LAKSHMAN

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION No. tl4O^{of 2O2O}

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Criminal Petition, under Section⁴⁸² of^{Cr.P.C., is} liled to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.376 ol 2OlB^{it-t FIR} No.455 of 2Ol7 on the file of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hvderabad. The petitioner is the sole accused in the said crime. The offence alleged against the petitior-rer is under Section 506 of IPC

¶21

Sri Pu11a Rao Yellanki, learned counsel ior the petitioner/ a.ccused. uould submit that the irrrcstiqation conducted l;r' the Police drd not reveal that the petitiolter has cornmrttcd the offcnce' r,rncler Section 506 ol IPC.^'lhc Poli,:e. rvithout conducting the investigation properl.r', filed the charge sheet with all false and baseless allegations. He u,ould further submit that presentll, the petitioner is in Australia, and due to pendency of the present case, he is not in a position to come to India and get his visa reneu,ed. With the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to quash the present CC.

¶22

On the other hand, Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddr', learned counsel for respondent No.2, r.r'ould submit that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are verl serior-rs and the Police, after conducting tl-re investigation, has filecl t1-re charge sheet and he sor-rght to dismiss the present petition

¶23

¶24

On perusal of the charge sheet, the police have stated that the investigation conducted by them would disclose that the accused started sending whatsapp messages to the mobile of LW- 1 demanding to '"l.ithdrau, the cases filed by LW- 1 daughter against him and his family members. When LW- 1 objected to withdraw the cases, the accused started scnding abusive messages to LW- 1 using filtl-r,r, language and th reaterled lvith dire consequel-tces.

¶25

Admittedl.\ , the CC lilcd for the offence pur-rishable under Section^.198-A ol IPC is also pending against the petitioner/ accused. There are serious allegations and specific overt acts against the petition er/ accused. All the contenttons raised by the petitioner are triable issues n'hich cannot be gone into in the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶26

Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought libertl' to approach the trial Court for discharge of the petitioner/ accused. There is no need to grant libert)' b1' this Court lor filing discharge petition. It is for the^petitionerto take all steps or avail all remedies ut-idcr^lau'

¶27

Miscellaneous petitions. if^{anr', pending in this Criminal}

¶28

PetiLion. shall st:rncl clo^scd

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

I The XVllAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶33

2 The Station House Officer, Jubilee Hills. Police Station, Hyderabad.

¶34

3 One CC to Sri Pulla Rao Yellanki, Advocate [OPUC]

¶35

4 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 5 JR ..'\Two VCD Copies

HIGH COURT

KL,J

DATED:1410912020

1 HE s
)
-) e
z
(,o l9SEPM
* *

¶41

ORDER

¶42

CRLP.No.1140 of 2020

¶43

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶44

\utl ), \ !n<sup>q

¶45

Dr.Pothireddy Surendranath Reddy v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Pothireddy Surendranath Reddy v. The State of Telangana 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

Mathangi Upendher Vs The State of Telangana

Khaliq Ansari Vs The State of Telangana

M/S.Sanghi Spinners India Ltd. and 2 Others Vs State of Ts., Rep. by P.P. and Another

Abhishek Maheshwaram Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Bonagiri Srinivas, And Another Vs The State of Telanangana, And another

Srungaram Narsimha And 3 Others Vs State of Telangana