Dismissed

Nikhilesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Jan 2022CRLP/2411/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed criminal petition seeking quashment/stay of criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 392 and 506 IPC. Court held specific allegations exist making it a triable issue for trial court. Petitioner granted liberty to apply for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition dismissed. Liberty granted to file application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharge.

Nikhilesh Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶2

-^R)'"1"-JlEi,[ff*?'YTfr \it8'

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEK'LAKSHMAN}

¶5

CRI^MIN L PETITI^ON N o: 241^10F2021

¶6

Between: Occ. Advocate,^{R/o H No 4-9-} ---*,r.nir".fl, S/o Thogari.Ramulu' Aged about 31^years' 'gli.' [.8.s' Nus"r, A-dilabad'

¶7

.,.PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

AND

¶9

The^{State of Telangana'Rep by Public Prosecutor'HighCourt' Hyderabad'}

¶10

r^h e^{s tatio n H o u se of fi ce r ( S H o )' B owen p ar g} JSlltS.tJ?tl?R*'S3"$38'-,.

¶11

jsxh'il;,.u,i:}E'#.vi$ffi,3J;IP"#f#At['^'J;J'

¶12

'E1lx5%!ff^i%,t?:

¶13

Chandra^{Reddy, S/o Not Known Sub-lnspector of Police'KukatpallyTraffic} Police Station

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

PetitionunderSection4B2olCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the Memorandum^{of CrounOs oiCriminalpetition,the High Court may be p.leased} to quash the^{proceeding,i"'c.cr.r" ar I oI 2O2ODaied.25lO2t2020 in FIR No-486} of 2019, daled.^{16t12t2or's riled U7Sec.392,506 lPc on the file of the Horlble xl} Additional Chief^{MetropotiLn NlagistrateCourt at Hyderabadfor allegedoffences} U/s 392 and 506^{of IPC .}

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section^{482 of cr.P.C praying that in the circumstancesstated} ln the lv]emorandum of^{Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased} to stay all further^{prooeedingsincluding personal appearanceof the petitio^nerin} C.C Nb 819 of 2O2O^{Dalre,dr;to2t2020 in FIR No.486of 2019. dated. 1611212019} filed U/Sec.392, 506 IPC on^{the file of the Horlble Xl AdditionalChief lt/etropolitan} tvtagistrate court at Hyderabad for^{alleged offencesU/s 392 and 506 of IPC pending} disposal of the^{quash petition.}

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^perusing the^{Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the^arguments of^Sri BONDEIUPALLY RAIVULU ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 .

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

THE I|ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMA.N CRII IINAL PETITION No.2411 aF 2021

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Heard Sr: B.Ramu1u, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Pu tlic Prosecutor. Despite service of notice, there is no representr Ltion on behalf of the 3.d respondent.

¶24

Peruser I the record.

¶25

The pet ltioner herein is sole accused in C.C No.819 of 2O2O pending on the file of the Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan M a.gistrate, at Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the pet: lioner herein are under Sections 3912 and 506 of IPC. Both th: petitioner as weli as the 3'd^{respondentare} Advocates.

¶26

The all rgation against the^{petitioner hereinis that on} 16.12.2019, t re^{petitioner herein has ca-lled the3'd} respondent-def rcto-complainant^{to the ground floor of the} Court at Miyap -rr^{with an intentionto speak to hirr' and after} reaching the !r^{ound floor, the petitioner forcibly mtrde the 3'd} respondent^{to sit on his two wheeler'Scooty" threatened'} misbehaved^{wi.h him and took him to the Government Schoo1} ground, back^{side of bus stop, New Bowt:npa1lyat} 14.30hours.,,fterreachingthere,thepetitionerstarted beating the^{3'L respondentwith handsand threatened after} throwing^{him down on the groundrvith dire consequences'} kicked him^{rn,th legs on his stomach and hit on his face} There is furth^{:r allegationthat the petitionersnatchedaway}

¶27

¶28

his bag containing court related case files, ATM cards, Rs.10,000/- with court dress and ran away from the spot. Thus, there is life threat to the 3.d respondent from the petitioner herein.

¶29

During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has examined the 3.a respondent as L.W. 1 , one Chandrasekhar Reddy, Advocate as L.W.2, B.Raju, Car driver as L.W.3, N.Satish as L.W.4, M.Jagan as L.W.5, Doctor Anil, CMO, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, who issued Medicat Certificate of L.W. 1 as L.W.7. Thus, pima facie there are specific a-llegations against the petitioner herein.

¶30

Sri B.Ramulu, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 3.,1 respondent and L.W.2 are not practicing Advocates. At the behest of the 4th responclent, the 3.d respondent has implicated the petitioner herein in the above said case. He further, referring to the contents of the charge sheet, rvould submit that the sarne lacks ingredients of Section 392 of IPC.

¶31

It is relevant to extract Section 392 of IpC which reads as follows:-

¶32

"Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisomrent for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highu'ay between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years".

¶33

As stated above, pima facie, there are specific a,llegations against the petitioner herein which are triabie issues. The petitioner has to face trial ancl prove his

¶34

innocence^{befor, the trial Court' The contention of the} learned counsel^{l:r the petitioner that the 3'd responclent and} L.W.2 are not^{A Cvocates again is a triable issue and this} Court cannot^{dec ide the same in a petition fiied under Section} 482 of the^{Cr.l'.C. The othercontentions raised by the} petitioner^{are alt o triable issues whichthis Court c€mnot go} into in an^{application fiied under Section 482 of the Cr'P'C'} Thus, the^{petitio rer fails to make out any case to qlrash the} proceedings in^{C.C.No'819 of 2O2O and therefore'this} Criminal^{Petition is liable to be dismissed'}

¶35

As discr^{rssed supra, pnma facie' there are specific} allegations^{agairst the} Petitioner^{herein' he has to Iace trial} and prove^{his inlocence'Liberty is granted to the petitioner} to file an^{application under Section 239 of Cr'P'C' b':fore the} trial Court^{to d: scharge him from the above said (lalendar} Case.

¶36

iO. There'ore,^{the Criminal Petition isdismissed'}

¶37

in the^criminal Miscelianeous l^{etitions, ifanY, Pending}

¶38

md ciosed. petition,^{sha-il st} SD/-T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// ( [,r

¶39

SECTION^OFFICER

¶40

To,

¶41

iiriigilflil#ilr-1qlnll,#tty##f{Hffi^:::'

¶42

PALLY^{RAMU LU' Advocateto P u cl} , B'.i"Lt?S^SJ,IL''* "' 6. Two^{CD CoPies}

¶43

One^{SPare CoPY}

CDL

-TR A-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310112022

ORDER

GRLP.No.2411^{o 2021}

¶50

21 JAN 2022

¶51

DISMISSING^{THECRIMI} AL PETITION'}

¶52

$7 lol ,),o\

Nikhilesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhilesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Sri Sai Amrutha Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and another

M/s Go Green Motors India Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs State of Telangana and 9 others

M. Lakshma Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Thatikonda Satish Kumar, And 4 Others Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

Bandari Anil Vs The State of Telangana

Kammari Srinivas Achary, , Kummary Srinivas Vs Mutakari Anajaiah