Dismissed

M.a.Raheem v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Mar 2021CRLP/730/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashal of proceedings against accused No. 8 in an extortion matter. The petitioners argued their name was erroneously implicated. The Court declined quashal due to lack of specific grounds and pending investigation but directed the IO not to arrest the petitioner while investigation continues.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Investigating Officer not to arrest the petitioner; investigation to continue with petitioner's cooperation.

M.a.Raheem Vs State of Telangana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 730 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

M.A.Raheem, S/o Late Sharbuddin, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Advocate, R/o Vidhya Nagar, Bhongir Town and Mandal, yadadri-Btiongir District (Erstwhile Nalgonda District), Presently residing at Bandlaguda, Hyderabad

¶8

AND

¶9

...PETITIONERYACCUSED No.8

¶10

State of Telangana, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, Hiqh Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad

¶11

...RESPONDENT NO.1

¶12

Masagoni Balaraju, S/o Venkataiah, Aged 56 years, Business, Fl/o H.No.7-4-

¶13

7 Bl2l23, Gaganpahad, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District-500052

¶14

...RESPONDENT No.2/DEFACTO COMPLATNANT

¶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 call for the records and quash the FIR against the petitioner/Accused No.g in Crime No. 217 ot 2016 on the file of Yadagirigutta Police Station, yadadri-Bhongir District.

¶16

A. NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

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 grant stay of all further proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.g in Crime No. 217 ol 2016 on the file of Yadagirigutta^police Station, yadadri-Bhongir District, pending disposal of the main 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 papaiah Peddakula, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 .

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN}

¶21

CRIMINAL^{PETITIONNo. 73U. 0F 2021}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Petition^{is filed under Section 482 of the} Code of Criminal^{Procedure,1973, seeking to quash the} proceedings in Crime No'217^{of 2016 pending on the file of} Yadagirigutta Police^{Station, Yadadri-BhongirDistrict'}

¶24

Heard Sri D.^{Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel} representing Sri^{Papaiah Peddakula,learned counselfor the} petitioner and the learned^{Public Prosecutor'}

¶25

The petitioner^{is Accused No'8 in the above crime} registered for the^{offences under Section 386 and 120b IPC'} The allegation against^{the petitioner herein in the complaint} dated 24.09.2016 is that^{the second respondenthad} purchased two open plots each^{consisting of 600 square} yards of land in Sy.No'i56/KA/1^{situated at the outskirtsof} Gundiapally Village in^{the name of his wife and maternal} aunt. Eventually, he had^{been to Yadagiriguttato see his} plots wherein two^persons -^{Uppalaiahand Uday met and} enquired him about^{sale of the lands, for whichthe second} respondent replied that^{he is not proposedto sell. Thereafter,} "^{they said that when the secondrespondentis stayingat} hyderabad, it is not^{possibleto him to protectthe possession} of the said piots, and^{therefore, pressurizedhim to sell the} plots.

¶26

¶27

It is further alleged^{that after some time the second} respondent once^{again went to Yadagiriguttato look after the} plots, wherein the said Uppalaiah^{and Uday met and took} him to Pasham Srinu^{i.e. A. 1 whereinthe petitioner herein} was also present.^{There,a-11 the accused includingthe} petitioner herein have^{abused the secondrespondentand} threatened him to^{sel1 the said plots, The petitioner herein} gave an amount of^{Rs.3,OO,OOO/- to the second respondent} and pressurized^{him to sign on the papers, for which the} second respondent^{did not agree.Thereafter,all the accused} threatened the second^{respondentsaying thatANNA} DAGGARLONE VUNNAADU,^{NEE SANGATHIAKKADA} ANNANE CHOOSTHAADU,^{NEEKU BRATAKAALANILEDAA} etc. It is further^{alleged in the complaint that the second} respondent got scared^{to the threat given by the accused} including the^{petitioner herein,he took his wife and paternal} aunt of the second^{respondentto the Sub-Registrar'sOffice'} Yadagirigutta, for^{the purposeof registration, wherethe} associates of^{Pasham Srinu, accusedNo'1, had obtainedthe} signatures of the^{wife and paternal aunt of the second} respondent and^{sent them out. Thus, they haveobtained} registration under^{force and threat, and therefore'the} accused including^{the petitioner herein had committed} extortion.

¶28

¶29

Sri D' Prakash^{Reddy,learned senior counsel} representing Sri^{Peddakula Papaiah, learned counselfor the} petitioner, by referring^{to the contents of the complaint would} submit that though^{the name of Nayeem (gangster) is not} there in the complaint^{dated 24.09'2016,the Police have} mentioned the^{name of} 'Nayeem'^{in the complaint' Thus,the} Police have erred in^{registering the presentcrime by} mentioning the^{name of} 'Nayeem'.^{Accordingto him, the name} of the petitioner is^{not there in the complaint' He would} further submit that the^{petitioner herein, beingan Advocate,} appeared in a suit^{for perpetualinjunction filed by the second} respondent uide O.S.No.129^{of 2073. In proof of the same, he} has liled copy of the^{decree and judgment dated 24'07'2014} in O.S.No. 129 of 2013^{(old O.S.No.136of 2010) on the file of} the learned Junior Civil^{Judge, Alair. By referringto the} sarne, leanned senior^{counselwould submit that the Police} have implicated the petitioner^{herein, a practicingAdvocate,} in a false case at the instance^{of the second respondent'} According to him, the^{second respondentis not an aggrieved} party.

¶30

On the other hand,^{learnedPublic Prosecutor, on} instructions, would submit that^{the word 'Anna' is used in} the complaint itsetf and the^{said Anna is Nayeem(gangster).} He wouid further submit that^{becauseof the fear they have,} in view of the criminal history the^{saidNayeem (gangster)is}

¶31

¶32

having,^{the second respondent did not specifically mention} about the^{said name in the complaint'Learned Public} Prosecutor^{has also filed copies of the statementsof the} second^{respondent, Masagouni Suguna-thematernalaunt of} the second^{respondent and Raigiri Pandu'A perusal of the} said statements,^{it is revealedthat speci{ic allegationswere} made against^{the petitioner herein' Accordingto him'the} Police^{have recorded the statementsof the abovesaid three} witnesse^s '

¶33

7 The above^{stated facts would reveal that' pima} facie,^{there arespecific allegationsagainst the petitioner} herein.^{It is also not in dispute that he had appearedon} behalf of^{the maternal aunt of the secondrespondent i'e'} Masagouni^{Sugunain O'S'No'12 9 of 2O13li1edby her against} thesaidRaigirPanduandanotherforperpetualinjunction. The^{judgmentdated 24'O7 '2014in O'S'No'129of 2013 would} reveal^{thesaid fact'The ProPerty isalso sPecificallY} mentioned^{therein' Thus' itappears that the Petitioner} had aPPeared^{on behalf of} herein,^a Practicing^Advocate' maternalauntofthesecondrespondentwhoisalsoownerof 600 square^{yards of land in the said survey number'}

¶34

Though^{the crime was registeredon 24'09'2016'} thePolicehaverecordedonlytheStatementsofthree witnesses^{that too on 24'09'2016and 10'01'2019' Theyhave}

¶35

¶36

not completed the^{investigation and not filed final reportso} far.

¶37

g. Whether the word^{'Anna' mentioned inthe} complaint dated 24.09.2016^{is Nayeem (gangster) or not is a} fact to be investigated^{into by the InvestigatingOfficer' There} are several factual^{aspectswhich are to be investigatedinto} by the Investigating^{Officer during the course of investigation'} Therefore, this Court^{is not inclined to quash the proceedings} in Crime NO.2i7^{of 2016 at this stage'The petitioner herein} failed to make out any^{groundto quash the proceedings in} the said crime No.217^{of 2016. As stated above, thoughthe} crime was registered^{in the year 2016, the Policehave not yet} completed the investigation^{and not filed final report so far'} No explanation is forthcoming^{from the Police with regardto} the delay caused in^{completion of investigation and filing of} the report. Admittedly,^{the petitioner herein is a practicing} Advocate.

¶38

Considering the^{abovefacts, this criminal petition} is disposed of directing the^{InvestigatingOfficer in Crime} No.217 of 2016 pending^{on the file of YadagiriguttaPolice} Station, Yadadri-Bhongir^{District, not to arrest the petitioner} herein. However, it is made^{clear that the investigation may} go on and the petitioner^{shallcooperatewith the Investigating} Officer by furnishing the^{documents and also the information}

¶39

¶40

as sought by the investigating Officer in concluding the investigation.

¶41

Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall also stand

¶42

closed in the iight of this final order.

¶43

SD/.N'CHANDRASEKAR^RAO ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //rRUE coPY/l &

¶44

¶45

SECTI;N OFFICER

¶46

To, 1. The Judicial^{First Class Magistrate at Alair, Nalgonda District} i. iii; Bi;i..; Houie^{Onrcdi, Vioislrisutta poticqstation, Nalsonda District}

¶47

a: o;; CC 6^{sii-FipaianPeddakuia, Advocate(oPqc)}

¶48

;. iil CcsiJiuniiL^{Prosecutor'High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad^(OUT)

¶49

Two CD CoPies

gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810312021

8,
STA
oo 20 }/lAR z{Iz'.l
{
*
D Eai

¶56

ORDER

¶57

CRLP.No.730 ot²⁰²¹

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE CRL.P

M.a.Raheem v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.a.Raheem v. State of Telangana

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

Manupati Shiva Krishna Vs State of Telangana

Chittakala Satish Vs Smt. Spandana, And Anothe

P. Prabhaker and another Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Mazhar Mohammed Vs The State of Telangana

g.prashanth reddy Vs state of telangana

Guguloth Naresh Vs The State of Telangana