This order dismissed two Criminal Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of criminal proceedings regarding cheating and intimidation. The court held the allegations prima facie attracted Section 506 IPC, precluding quashing.
Both Criminal Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of proceedings were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 1'1234 OF 2013 AND 12322 F 2014
cRL.P.NO.11234 0F 2013
Between:
J.Pavanraj, S/o Sathyanarayana
...PETITIONER
AND
...RES'.NDENTS
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 CC No.43/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class [t4ag istrate, N,4ancherial.
CRLPMP. NO: 10099 OF 2013
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .Cpraying 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 the appearance of the petitio ner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.43 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First CIass ltr'lagistrate, Mancherial,pendlng disposal of thequashing petition.
Thls Petition coming on for hearing, uponperusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing thearguments of STi.O.KAILASHNATH REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and of theAssistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri M.Rama Krishna, Advocate for the Respondent No.2
cRL.P.NO.1 2322 0F 201 4:
Between:
J. Raghural, S/o.Sathyana raya na
..PETITIONER
AND
...RES'ONDENTS
PetitionunderSection4S2ofcr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandumof Groundsof criminal Petition,the High court may be pleased toquash theproceedings in cc No.43/2013 on the file of I Additional .tudicial Magistrate ofFirstClass, Mancherial, Adilabad'
CRLPMP .N O: 12646OF 2014
Petition under Section482 ofcr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandumof Groundsof criminal Petition,the High court may L"jfeaseO to stayall furtherproceedingsincluding appearanceof petitlo ner/accused No.1 inC.C.No.43of 2013 on the file of I Adl JudicialFirst -the biass Magistrate,Mancherial, Adilabad pending disposalof the quashing petition.
I.A. N O: 1 OF 2014
Petition under section482 of cr.P.cpraying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandumof Groundsof criminal Petition,the High court may neptLaseO topermitthe petitioner to receive. the copy of docket orderin CC No.43of20'l3,dated0610212014andthecomplainantcopyof2"'respondent'
ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandumof Grounds of CriminalFetitionand upon hearing the arguments of sri.o.KAlLASHNATHREDDY, Advocatefor the Petitionerand of the Addltional Public Prosecutoron behalf of the RespondentNo.1and of Sri M.Rama Krishna, Advocate for theResPondentNo.2
The Court made thefollowing:ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY CRL.P.Nos,l 123.1 OF 201 3 & 12322 F 2014
COMMON ORDER:
Crl.P.No. I1234 of 2013 is filed by petitioner/A-2 while Crl.P.No. 12322 of 2014 is filed by petitioner/A-1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.43 of 2013, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mancherial.
2, Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/A-l and A-2, leamed counsel for the second respondent/complainant and leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor for the first respondent/State, perused the record.
7
3
Later, the second respondent has requested A-1 several times to provide the land, but in vain.
4
peekuntavo peekkonuvu evariki chepputhavo cheepuko'nee anthu chustamu inkokkasaari phone chesina hyderabadnundi xtanusulanupampi champista'firu'and A-2 alsotook the phone and wamed in thesame manner.The second respondentin the complaint allegedthat the threatenedandwamedhim that they will kill hirn byengaging antisocialelementsand also dishonestly cheated himby not registering the plot aftel taking the entiresale consideration.The offences alleged against the petitioner/A-land A-2 in thecomplaint are under Sections420 and 506 readwith Section34IPC.TheleamedMagistratehastakencognizanceonly for the offenceunder Section 506 IPc. as no ingredients attracting theoffenceunderSection420IPCweremadeoutbythesecond respondent.
t
5
1 \
only commission of offence under Section506 IPC' The leamed Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance againstthe petitoiners/A-1 and A-2 only for the offence under Section506 IPC.Therefore, I do not find any irregularity in the orderpassedby the leamed Magistrate in taking cognizance of the offenceunderSection 506 IPC against petitioners/A-l and A-2.
6
..,
alleged offence. There are no valid or..justifiable grounds to qr.rash further proceedings in C.C.No .43 of 2013. 9. In the result, both the crimirral petitions are disrnissed. 10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, ifany, stand closed. Sd/-K.AI\4MAJI ASSISTANT REGIST ,TRUE COPY' SECTION FFICER To \ 1. The JudicialFirst Class Magistrate,Mancheria.l , . . i. ii.i;6di.;Houseofficer,F.S Mandamerri,Adilabad District' a. i;; Ce';to in" prnri. Prosecutor,Highcourtfor the state of Telangana' Hyderabad(OUT) +. oiri cC to Srio.kaitashnathReddy,Advocate (.o^PUC) 5. One CCto Sri M.Rama Krishna,Advocate (OPUU) 6. Two CD CoPies 7. One SPareCoPY Kj \
HIGH COURT
DATED:1210712022
t\9 O-c
21 Jut ?[12
(,:1
#r'
ORDER
CRLP.Nos.11234 of2013 and 12322 o12014
Crl.Ps are dismissed.
%"4
+<br>
t'.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C when allegations prima facie attract Section 506 IPC.
Whether allegations of cheating under Section 420 IPC are sufficient to quash the proceedings.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
J. Pavanraj
J. Raghuram
State of AP.
P. Chiranjeeva Chary
A. Santhosh Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
