Disposed

Sampangi Ramulu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Nov 2021CRLP/8720/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging proceedings in a land boundary dispute was not allowed. Instead, the Court directed the police to comply with Section 41A Cr.P.C. and Arnesh Kumar guidelines before arrest.

What did the court decide?

Directed the SHO to follow Section 41A Cr.P.C. and Arnesh Kumar guidelines before arresting the petitioners; dismissed the prayer to quash the FIR.

Sampangi Ramulu Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ' AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DT, JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8720 OF²⁰²¹

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sampangi Ramulu, S/o Late Hanumanth, Aged^{about55 years, Occ. Agriculture,} R:/o Lemamidi Village, Keshampet^{lvlandal,Ranga Reddy District.}

¶8

Vadde Mallesh, S/-o Late Ramaiah,^{Aged about 35 years,Occ. Pvt..Service,} R/o.3-36, Parwathpur, Kondurg, Ranga^{Reddy District.}

¶9

Smt.Vadde Sumitia, W/o Vadde^{Mallesh, Aged about 30 years, Occ.Housewife,} F/o 3-36, Pan,uathpur, Kondurg,^{Ranga Reddy District.} ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3

¶10

AND

¶11

The state of Telangana, Rep.^{by its Public Prosecutor,Highcourt at Hyderabad.} Through SHO, Keshampet, Cyberabad.

¶12

Samplngi Laxmamma,^{W/o Vadaiah, Aged abolt} {1^{yg?t!,Occ. Housewife'} R/o.3-36, PaMathapur villase,^{Kodurs,".n:.[EggbonjB[ilr.,.orLAtNANr}

¶13

Petition under section^{482 ol cr.P.c praying thatin the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of criminal Petition, the High courtmay be pleased} to quash the FIR No.^{200/2021 on the file of the P.S.Keshampet, cyberabad for the} offence uls 420, 447,427,504,^{5OO r/w 34 IPC againstthe petitioners / A1 to A3}

¶14

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2021

¶15

Petition under Section^{482 of cr.P.cpraying that in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of criminalPetition, the High courtmay be pleased} to stay all further^{proceedings including arrest of the petitioners/ A1 to A3 in FIR No.} 2OO|2O21 on the file of^{the P.S Keshampet, Cyberabad}

¶16

ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandumof Grounds of criminal^{Petitionand uponhearingthe arguments of sri PONNAI\t1} ASHOK GOUD, Advocate^{for the Petitioners and of the Assistant Public Prosecutor} on behalf of the^{Respondent No.1 and the Respondent No.2 not appearedeither in} person or by Advocate.

¶17

The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶18

THE HON'BLE DT.^{JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER}

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION^{NO.872O OF 2021}

¶20

ORDERT

¶21

This Criminal Petition, under^{Section 482 of the Codeof} Criminal Procedure, 7973^{(for short, 'Cr.P.C.'),is filed by the} petitioners/A.1 to A.3 seeking to^quash the^{proceedings against} them in Crime No.200 of 202L of^{Keshampet PoliceStation,} Cyberabad, registered^{for the offencesunder Sections 420, 447,} 427, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the^{petitioners/A.1to A.3,} the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor^{representing the} respondent No.1/State and^perused the record.

¶23

Learned counsel for the^{petitioners/A.1} to A.3^would contend that allegations made against the^{petitioners/A.1} to^A.3 in the subject report dated 05.11.2021 do not constitute^the offences alleged under Sections 470,447,427,504 506 r/w³⁴ IPC. It is also contended that the subject dispute between the parties is civil in nature. Having submitted for a considerable time, learned counsel for the^{petitioners/A.1} to A.3 made^a request to this Court to direct the investigating agency to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 41A of Cr.P.C and to follow the guidelines prescribed by the Honourable Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and anotherl on the ground that the maximum sentence of imprisonment prescribed for the alleged offences is below Seven (7) years.

¶24

'^{AIR 20l4 sc2756}

¶25

¶26

4 fhe learned Assistant public prosecutor representing the respondent No.I/State conceded the

¶27

reguest of the ,earned counsei for the petitioners/A.1 to A.3.

¶28

It appears from the record that there is a boundary dispute in relation to land sold by the responde nt No.2/de facto c.mplainant to the petitio ner/A.3.In the given circumstances of the case, it is not appropriate to guash the proceedings against the petitioners/A.1 to A.3. However, in view of the request made on behalf of the petitioners/A.1 to A.3, the Station House Officer, Keshampet police Station, Cyberabad, is directed to follow the procedure laid down under Sectio n 4LA of Cr.p.C, before arresting the petitioners/A,1 to A,3 and stricuy adhere to the guidelines formurated by the Honourabre Apex court in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra).

¶29

6 With the above observations and direction, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶30

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶31

I 1

¶32

¶33

Sd/-B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// G" SECTION OFFICER

¶34

Jhe^{Judicial First Classfvlagistrate,} Shadnaqar.

¶35

Jhe^{Judicial First Classfvlagistrate,} Shadnaqar. 2. The S_tation House Officer, kesf,ampet p.S.]dvneraOao.

¶36

9n" 99^{to Sri ponnamnsnokcoutj,} Aar*Lt-"'iobtjcl 4. Two ccs to^pubric prosecutor, High'coud i;;irre-btzie orrerangana, Hyderabad (ouT)

¶37

Two CD Copies 6, One Spare Copy Kj.

HIGH^COURT

DATED:25/11/2021

ORDER

CRLP.No.8720 of 202'l

¶42

i<br>,ffi
tlr

¶43

DISPOSING OF THE C|RL,P.

¶44

Sampangi Ramulu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sampangi Ramulu 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

Addanki Hemanth Kumar , Raju and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Patan Khadar Khan Vs The State of Telangana and another

Rakesh Niranjan Ranjan Vs State of Telangana

Maloth Laxmi Vs State of Telangana

Mamidipally Srinivas Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Genupula Rama Krishna alias Genupala Ramakrishna Reddy Vs The State of Telangana