Dismissed

Palloju Venkateshwarlu v. The State of Telanagana, And Another

Telangana HC1 Nov 2021CRLP/358/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The Court held that specific allegations from the report constituted cognizable offences involving false promises of government jobs and threats, making the case unfit for quashing.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition filed to quash proceedings in Crime No. 916 of 2020 was dismissed.

Palloju Venkateshwarlu Vs The State of Telanagana, And… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 358 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Palloju Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Late Palloju Kanthaiah

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telanagana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶11

Nimmanagotti Rameshwari, Wo. Nimmanagoti Venkanna,

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶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 call for the records relating to Crime. No.9',l6 of 2020, dated. 2911212020 on the file of Meerpet Police Station, Rachakonda, and quash the proceedings therein

¶14

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\ilemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in to Crime No. 916 of 2020 on the file of Meerpet Police Station, Rachakonda.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri E.VENKATA SIDDHARTHA, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

¶19

THE HC N'BLE^{DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER}

¶20

ERIMINAL^{PETITION No'358OF 2O2t}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Crimi lal Petition,^{under Section482 of the Code of} Criminal Procedu^{e, !g73, is filed by the petitioner/Alto quash the} proceedings agail st^{him in Crime No'916 of 2020 of MeerpetPolice} Station, Rachako^{lda, registeredfor the offences punishableunder} Sections 406^{and 420 of I.P.C'}

¶23

2.Heardthelearnedcounselforthepetitioner/Al,learned Assistant Public^{Prosecutorappearing for respondentNo'1/State} and^perused the^'ecord.

¶24

Learned cc unsel^{for the petitioner/A1 would submitthatthe} allegations^{in tht subjectreport, daled 29'72'2020,do not disclose} commissionofcrgnizableoffence.Alltheallegationsmadeagainst the^petitioner lA1^{are false. In view of the facts and circumstances} ofthecase,thtreisnothingtoinvestigateintoandultimately' prayed to allow t re Criminal^{Petition as prayed for'}

¶25

On the ot ter^{hand, the learnedAssistant Publlc Prosecutor} would submit^{hat there are specific allegationsagainstthe} petitioner/Al wi h^{regard to commissionof the alleged offences'} Therefore, furth''r^{investigationis warranted'Hence' it is not a fit} case to^{quash 'he proceedings in the subject Crime aqainst the} petitioner/A1 a rd^{ultimately, prayed to dismiss the Criminal} Petition,

¶26

5 As seen f om^{the subjectreport, dated 29'12'2020' lodged} with the^{polic a, there are specific allegations againstthe}

¶27

DI.SA,J Crl.P.No.358 ol 2021

¶28

¶29

¶30

petitioner/A1 that he collected huge amounts From the respondent No.2/de facfo complainant and her friend stating that he will provide Government jobs to them and that he also threatened the respondent No.2/de facto complainant with dire consequences. When there is information constituting commission of cognizable offences mentioned in the subject F.LR., issuance of subject F.I.R. cannot be faulted and it cannot be quashed. Under these circumstances, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings in the subject crime against the petitioner/A1.

¶31

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶32

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal

¶33

Petition shall stand closed.

¶34

Sd/-K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII v." SECTION OFFICER

¶35

¶36

The ll Metropolitan Magistrate,^{Rachakonda, L.B.Nagar.} 2. The Station House Officer,^{P.S. Meerpet' Rachakonda.} s. rwo ccs to Public Prosecutor,^{Highcourt for the stateof Telangana,Hyderabad} (ouT)

¶37

bne CC to Sri E.Venkata Siddhartha,^{Advocate (OPUC)}

¶38

Two CD Copies

¶39

One Spare Copy Ki. *'X\

HIGH COURT

DA'|ED:0111112021

:l.=a-Y:
,4 STA] I-

ORDER

CRLP.No.358 of 2Q21

DISMISSED.

)-)
@
2-<br>

Palloju Venkateshwarlu v. The State of Telanagana, And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palloju Venkateshwarlu v. The State of Telanagana, 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

Mulkalapalli Nagaraju Vs The State of Telangana

Ch. Somnath Vs The State of Telangana

Rajupalem Murali Mohan Vs The State of Telangana

Cholleti Srinivas Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Lethakari Swarupa and 3 others Vs The State of Telanana and another

Vempati Ranjith Kumar Vs The State of Telangana