Allowed

Ali Amshan, Barkas and Anr., v. State of Ap., Rep. Pp and Anr.

Telangana HC17 Jun 2022CRLP/1299/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings against petitioners in a case involving alleged possession of arms. The Court held that absence of specific allegations impelling active involvement and reliance solely on confessions of others rendered continuance of proceedings an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against petitioners/A-4 and A-5 in Crime No.53 of 2014 on the file of Pahadi Shareef Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, are quashed.

Ali Amshan, Barkas and Anr., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp and… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

lN rHE^{HrcH.orlf8lotJ=ot"HEoF TELANGANA}

¶2

FRIDAY,^{THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OI} i\JNE iWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶3

rHE HoNouRourr^{r*?553"'[ o''o*"osHREDDY}

¶4

CRIMIN AL PETI^{TIONNO:1299 0} F 2014

¶5

Between:

¶6

1 Ali Amshan, S/o.^{MubarakAmshan'} i. o;";A.;tian,^{S/o. Mubarak Amshan'} ...pETlTtoNERS/A-4^{& A-5}

¶7

AND

¶8

The State^{of AP., rept' by its PublicProsecutor'High Court of A'P '} Hyderabad .....RespondenU^Complainant

¶9

Nimmarajula^{Mallesh,S/o Yada.iah'} S'ONDENT/DEFACTO^COMPLAINANT

¶10

Petition^{under Section 482 of Cr'P C praying that in the circumstances} stated^{in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition'the High Courtmay} be^{pleased to call for the records relating to Crime No' 53 of 2014 on the file of} thePoliceStationPahadishareef,Cyberabad,R.R.District.

¶11

CRLPMP NO: 10 550^{F 2014}

¶12

Petition^{under Section 482 of Cr'P C praying that in the circumstances} statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmay be^{pleasedto stay aIfurther proceedings incruding appearance of the} petitioners/A4^{and A5 in Crime No 53 of 2014on the file of PoliceStation'} Pahadi Shareef,^{Cyberabad R'R District'}

¶13

ThisPetitionComingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandumof Grounds of^{Criminal Petitionand upon hearing thearguments of} STi.M.A.K.MUKHEED'^{Advocate for the Petitioners and of the PublicProsecutor} on behalf^{of the ResPondent No1}

¶14

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶15

¶16

THE HONOUR*ABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTI{OSH REDDY

¶17

CRL.P.No.l299 OF 2014

¶18

ORDIiR:

¶19

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitionersl A-4 & A-5 in Cr.No.53 of 2014, on the file of Pahadi Shareef Police Station. Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B) of the Arms Act and Section 120-B IPC.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the first respondent/State. Pcrused the recold.

¶21

The allegations in the complaint, IN brief, are that on 30.01.2014 at about i630 hrs, the cornplainant, who is a police constable, along with HG-1311 was patrolling near the disputed land i.e., Sy.No.156/E of Balapur Village and at thar time, Mandal Surveyor was surveying the land as there was border dispute between Ashman (A-4) and one Siddique. The said police olficials

¶22

¶23

noticed that a Skoda car bearing No.Ap 10AA3330 parked near Jalpally Kaman,, which is adjacent to the disputed land, in suspicious circumstances. When the complainant approached the said vehicle, one person by name Abdul Aziz ran away from the car and two other inmates of the car were found armed with knives in suspicious circumstances. The said persons revealed their names as Awad Ashman and Mohsin Bin Jiyade. It is funher stated in the complaint that earlier as the family members of Siddique attacked petitioner/A-4 and his brother, they possessed the said knives in order to protect themselves.

¶24

Based on the said complaint, the police registered a case

¶25

in Cr.No.53 of 2014 against petitioners/A-4 and A_5 for the offences stated above. Later, the accused were produced before the learned Magistrate with remand case diary, wherein the petitioners/A-4 and A-5 were shown as absconding.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that based on

¶27

the confessional statements of A-l to A-j, the petitioners herein have been roped in and they have nothing to do with the alleged offences. The learned counsel further contended that even if the

¶28

¶29

¶30

allegations in the complaint, on its face value, are taken to be true, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted even prima facie.^{He prays} for quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners in Cr.No.53 of 2014.

¶31

On the other hand, the leamed Assistant public prosecutor opposed the contentions of leamed counsel for the petitioners and submits that the police may be permitted to complete the investigation and file a final report against the original culprits and prays for dismissal of the criminal petition.

¶32

The allegations in the complaint are that while the police were patrolling near the disputed land they noticed that a Skoda car bearing No.AP 10AA 3330 parked near Jalpally Kaman, which is adjacent to the disputed land, in suspicious circumstances, and when they approached the said vehicle, one person by name Abdul Aziz ran away from the car and two others, who are A_1 and A-2, were found armed with knives in suspicious circumstances. They stated that as the family members of Siddique attacked petitioner/A-4 and his brother earlier, they possessed the said knives in order to protect themselves.

¶33

¶34

The offences^{alleged againstthe petitioners are under} Section^{25(1-B) of the Arms Act and Section 120B IPC' There are} no specific^{allegations about the involvement of petitioners/A-4} and A-5 in^{the alleged offence and, in fact' A-l and A-2 were} allegedly^{lound to have armedwith knives'but they have not used} when the^{police went near the vehicle'Prima facie' the allegations} in the complaint^{and the remandcasediary do not attract any of the} ingredients^{of the alleged offences and they do not even prima} facie^{make out any cognizableoffences' It is on the basis of} confessional^{ofA-1to A-3, the policehave foisted the present case'} In these^{circumstances'it is held thatcontinuanceof further} proceedings against^{the petitioners/A-4 and A-5 in Cr'No'53of} 2014 only^{amounts to abuse of process of law and would not serve} any useful^{purpose.It is, therefore,considered a fit case to invoke} the inherent^{powersof this Court under Section482 CI'P'C"and} quash further^{proceedings against the petitionerslA-A & A-5 in} Cr.No.53^{of 2014.}

¶35

g. In the result, the criminal^{petition isallowed'The} proceedings^{againstthe petitioners/A-4 & A-5in Cr.No.53of}

¶36

¶37

2014,onthefileofthePahadiShareefPoliceStation,Cyberabad,

¶38

Ranga Reddy^{District, are hereby quashed'}

¶39

i 0. Pending^{miscellaneous petitions,if any'stand closed'}

¶40

Sd/.T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// G

¶41

SECTIbN^OFFICER

¶42

To 1 . The XIV Metropolitan^{Magistrate'Cyberabad', at L.B Naoar}

¶43

The station^{House oni#,?';i;;"si;t'";; Panaoisna'e!f'cvberabad'Ransa} Reddv District.

¶44

Til"ii; Reddv District.^{6'lhePunlicProsecutor'High Court for the Stateof Telangana'} Hvderabad^(OUT)

¶45

+. ijiri,"cCiJ^{iti rrlt.A.r'rt'rurneed' Advocate (OPUC)}

¶46

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶47

One^SPareCoPY

Kit

HIGH COURT

DATED:17^10612022

ORDER

\ r'L STA
r)
?"<br>t, >ii
2.
3 --J 16 JUL 202
a
t-)t-s pal at I

¶55

GRLP.No^{.1299 of 2014}

¶56

Allowing the^Crl.P.

¶57

<br>

Ali Amshan, Barkas and Anr., v. State of Ap., Rep. Pp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali Amshan, Barkas and Anr., v. State of Ap., Rep. Pp and Anr.

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

Myneni Surendra, Usa., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Tirigipalli Krishnakanth Vs Kadarla Lalitha Kumari

Tigura Sankar Reddy Vs the State, through Sho., and Another

T.G.K.Murthy Vs State of Telangana rep,pp

Vemula.Krishnamanoher Vs State of Telangana

Basa Maheshwar and 2 Others Vs the State of A.P. Rep. by Its Pp and 2 Others