Allowed

Chintala Srinivas , Srinu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Dec 2020CRLP/6198/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners accused challenged a notice dated 17.11.2020 issued under Sections 91/160 CrPC. The Court held that the investigating agency should issue notice under Section 41-A CrPC to collect documentary evidence from the accused for investigation purposes and quashed the impugned notice under Sections 91/160 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; Notice dated 17.11.2020 under Sections 91/160 CrPC quashed; Respondent directed to issue notice under Section 41-A CrPC.

Chintala Srinivas , Srinu Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

tVONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6198 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Chintala Srinivas @ Srinu, S/o Late lVladhunaiah,

¶8

Chintala Madhunamma, W/o Late Madhunaiah,

¶9

Puli Suguna. W/o Late Kumar

¶10

.,.PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1.3

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana, through Station House Officer, NTPC Police Station Ramagundam Comissionerate

¶13

Penchala Tirupathi, S/o. Rayalingu,

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Notice daled 1711112020 issued under section 91, 160 of Crl.P.C in Cr.No.156 ol 2020 on the file of N T P C P.S, Ramagundam Comissionerate

¶16

LA. NO: 1 OF 2020

¶17

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 grant stay of all further proceedings in Cr.No. 156 of 2020 on the file of the NT^PC Police Station, Ramagundam Comissionerate including suspension of impugned Notice dated 1711112020 issued under section 91, 160 of CR.P.C,^pending disposal of Criminal Petition

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri^THADIKONDA KOTESWARA PRASAD, Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Additional^Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1^.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THO HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶21

Criminal Petition No.6198 ol 2O2O

¶22

QRDER

¶23

'l'lrc prescnl. (lrirninal Pctition is lilcd under Scction 482 ol Cr.l).C. bv the petitionr:rs/ accuscd Nos. I to l) secking to quash the notice dated 17 .ll.2O2O issued under Section 91/ 160 of Cr.P.C. in Crin're No.156 ol 2O2O of NTPC Police Station, Ramagundam Cr>nrmissionr:ratc.

¶24

I'learc.l Sri T. Kotcshu,ara Prasad. learned counscl lbr tlrc pclltioncrs/n.1 to A.3 :rnd leilrned Adclitior-ral Public Prosecntor irl)l)( iiIinq 1()r lllc f irsl rt:spontlcnt Stirtc. I)crLrsccl t.hc rnatcri:r1 pliri'cc1 on rccorcl.

¶25

\'ith thc const:nl ol thc lcarned cor-rnst--l appearing Ibr thc Prrr'1it^{s, tlrt crinrinirlpr'trlion is tiLli( n rr1; lirr hcirringt1.r rc.:r,tgl-r Vrrlrt.r} Conli:rcncirrg in thc: virtr-Lal Coult today, i.e ., 1.1.12.2O2O.

¶26

rl. 'l'ht-' lc-:rnrcd counsel lbr the petitioncrs s'ould sr-rbmit th:rt thc pe tilionr:rs are arral'crl as accusccl Nos. I to 3 in Ct imc No.156 of 2020 datcd 18.08.2020. The learned counsei ior the pet.itioners u,ould lurther submit that this Court by order dated 02.l | .2O2O in Criminal Pctition No..5il28 of 2O2O directed the lirst respondent/ invcstigi-rting agcnc] tc> lirllou' thc procedurc-' laicl dotvn under Scr:tiorr^,1 l-A o1'Cr.l).C. and also to follou' rhc guidclincs rssr.Lecl b1, Llrt' llr.rn'blt Strprcnrc Court ir.r Arnesh Kumar u. Stdte of lliharl .

¶27

It is sLlbnlittr)(1 llr'thc leirrric-cl c<.rrrr.rsrl Ior titt- ltetttioncrs thirt thc rrsporrdcnt invcstigating authorilv rr itht>lrr issrrirrg rtorir r. rr ,'s. 1l A ol L'r.l).C., has issr-rccl the impr-rgned norice u/s.9i,/1()0

¶28

¶29

of Cr,P.C. to the pctitioncrs c:rllinq ul)o11 to lurnish certair-l documents. It is submitted that the notice u/s 9l I 160 Cr.P.C. can only be issued to a witness and not to an accused in a crime. In support of the above submission, the lcarned counscl for the petilioners relied on a judgment rendcred by the llon'blc Suprcmc Court in Shgamlal Mohanlal o. State of Gujarat2.

¶30

'4.

¶31

Or-r the olher hand. thc learnccl Additional Public l.)rosecutor u ould submit that as thc pctitioners, arc arravccl as accusr:d Nos. l to 3 in the crimc registcred, the respor-rdent/ irrvcstiga ting ag( nc\ ls re<luircd to collcct clocumcnts in ordcr to procced u'ith t hr: investigation bc[orr: taking an] lurthcr actiorr zrgair-rst l.ltc pctitioncrs-accuscd. Learncd Additional pr-rblic proscctrtor ri'ould also sui:mit that thc re spondent/ in vestigal.ir-19 agency l,,,ould issur: a notice u/s.41-A of Cr.P.C. to the petitioncrs, as dire<:tcd b1, this Court by its order dated 02.1 L2O2O in Criminal Petition No.5328 of 2O2O and would also follow the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kuma ls case (1 supra) as noted in the above s.aid order.

¶32

7 . Having regard lo the above, withoul delving further on t h<: issue o1' eithcr noticc und<:r Section 91/ 160 ol Cr.P.(1. can bt: issuc'd lo tI.rr' 1>crsor.rs u ho :rrc :rrr:rlccl irs ;rcc:rrscrl ir.r llr('^('nnl( . sincc the rcspondcnt authorit) can sock Lhc in{irllnatior-r/ cloi:umcnts in conncction rvirh thc investigation into thc crirnc rcgistercd bv issurng noLicc unclcr Scctior.r^.1 I A Cr.P.(1, thtrs. llrc responclent ar-lthority is hereby drrocted tc-r issuc noticc u/s.^.'l I'n, Cr.P.C., as directed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.5328 of

¶33

' 1to651² scR^4s7

¶34

¶35

202O, and scek for the inlbrmation / documents lrom lhe pctitioncrs - accused, as the investigating authority may consider ncccssar)' to pror:ccd u,ith thc invcsLigation. In thc evcnt, the petitioners - accused fail to furnish the information / documents as mentioned in notice issued under Section 41-A Cr,P.C., the rcspondcnl. aulhoritv is lrcc to takc lurther action sl.rictly in irccolclancc u,ith lelu,.

¶36

Subject to the above observation and direction, the criminal l.rcf^{itirrrr is rrllourrrl ancl tht: inrptruncrl noticc (iatc(l 17.11.2O2O} issucci turclct Sc<:lior.r 9171(r0 ol' Cr.l).C is lrcrt:br, cluarsircri. Misccllaneous petitiolls, if 4ny, pending in this crinrinal pctitiorr slritll slr nil r'lo sccl,

¶37

Sd/.K.AIVI,4AJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

¶38

¶39

The Station House Officer, NTPC Police Station, Ramagundam Co m m iss io n e rate.

¶40

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad (ouT)

¶41

One CC to Sri Thadikonda Koteswara Prasad, Advocate (OPUC)

¶42

Two CD Copies Kj \ -.

¶43

HIGH COURT

¶44

DATED:1411212020

¶45

1 Hr- s IA 14:
.(
1l
oo 3 0 DEC 2U0
* I

¶46

ORDER

¶47

CRLP.No.6198 ot 2020

¶48

ALLOWING THE CRL.P.

Chintala Srinivas , Srinu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintala Srinivas , Srinu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Aleem Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

Kumari Rajani Vs The State of Telangana

M.Jayanath Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Marri Buchi Reddy Vs the State of Ap., and 3 Others

Abdul Sayeed Mohammad Vs The State of Telangana

Jasvinder Kour Saluja Vs The State of Telangana