Disposed

Depavath Mothya Naik- v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Mar 2021CRLP/1803/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings or grant a stay, directing the investigating officer to strictly follow Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and Arnesh Kumar guidelines. The Court found factual aspects requiring investigation, thereby remanding the matter to the police.

What did the court decide?

Directed the investigating officer to follow Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and Arnesh Kumar guidelines strictly without quashing the proceedings.

Depavath Mothya Naik- Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND IWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:^'1803 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Depavath Mothya Naik, S/o Lasker, Age- 41 Years, Occ- Agriculture, Fl/o tVysigandi villaage, Kadthal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶8

...PETITIONEFYACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public prosecutor, High Court, High Court of Telangana

¶11

Dr.Sai Laxmi Swetha, W/o Not known, 36 Medical Officer, Primary^Health Center, [t/asigandi village, Kadthal ltilandal, Ranga Reddy District, Rl/o Flat^No. 103, KR Vennela Residency, Bairamalguda, Hyderabad

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶13

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 quash the proceedings in Cr.No.241202'1 of P.S. Kadthal, Cyberabad District.

¶14

l.A. NO: 2OF 2021

¶15

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 further^proceedings including arrest of^petitioner in Cr.No.2412021 of P.S. Kadthal, Cyberabad District during the pendency of Criminal^petition.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri It/. Saroj Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No. 2

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HONOUIIABLE SRI.]US'I'ICE^{K. LAKSHMAN}

¶19

CRIMINAI- I'EI'ITI ON^{No, I 803 ol' 2021}

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

Heard learned counsel for^{petitioner,learnedPublicProsecutor} and perused the record.

¶22

The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is^{a Medical} Otlcer working in Primary Health Centre, Masigandi^{villageof Kadthal} Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. lhe allegation^{againstthe petitioner} herein is that he is the husband of MPP and^{he has questionedthe 2"'r} respondent about her late reporting to duty.^{There is also an allegation} against the petitioner herein that he^{has threatenedthe de facto} compiainant.

¶23

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the^2nd respondent has implicated the^{petitionerin a false case, boring grudge} against the petitioner that he has^{questioned her abouther reporting} late to duty; it is a politically motivated^{case and that the ingredients} of the offences alleged against the^{petitioner herein are lacking in the} complaint.

¶24

On the other hand, lealned Public^{ProsecLltor,on instructions,} would submit that the matter is at clime stagc'and^{there are specific} allegations against the petitioner hercin.

¶25

The above said lacts would reveal^{that there are several factual} aspects to be investigatecl into^{by the invesrigatingotficer,including} the allegations made by the 2"'r responclent against^{the petitioner}

¶26

herein.^{There is arso an allegationagainstthe 2nd respondent about} non-signing^{of Kalyana i-akshnriScheme applicationsand alsoabout} misbehaving^{with the 2n'1 respondent by the petitioner herein' Thus'} the said^{aspects are to be investigatedinto by the investigatingofficer} and aiso^{in view of the fact that the punishment for the offences} alleged^{againstthe petitioneris imprisonmentfor 7 yearsor below 7} years, the^{Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the investigating} officer^{in Crime No'24 of 2021 of KadthalPolice Station' to strictly} follow^{the procedure laid downunder Section 41-A of Cr'P'C'' and} also^{the guiclelines issuedby the Apex Courtin Arnesh Kumar v'} State^{of Bihar and anotherr.The petitionersharl co-operate withthe} investigating^{officerin concluding the investigation'}

¶27

Miscellaneous^{petitionspending' if any' shallstand closed'}

¶28

SD/-N.c^{HANDRASEKHAR RAO} 1 1zora1 a scc 273 ASSISTAN^{T REGISTRAR}

/ITRUE^COPY//

SEGTION^OFFICER

To,

1. 'sliliRiif iltrH#n:&3i:'&i:r"I'?i'j':1 3. iffi ,PsjfulB",tsffi gl'""lttS l:$'Lu'oi^{Reddv' Advocate [oPUcl} 4 Two^{C.D Coptes} .)z--

¶33

HIGH COURT

¶34

DATED:1910312021

¶35

H s rA
e ?
oo 27l4AB 2021 C
,,1
* DI: s
{{

¶36

ORDER

¶37

CRLP.No.1803^{of 2021}

¶38

DISPOSING^{OF THE CRL.PETITION.} @*6+

Depavath Mothya Naik- v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Depavath Mothya Naik- 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

Syed Zakiuddin , Urooj and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Komatireddy Shyamsunder Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Association of Liquor and Beer Suppliers, Vs State of Telangana

Thirupathi Mutta Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Sabavath Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mr. Asirn Bin Qasim Vs The State of Telengana