Dismissed

Gadari Luther v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Sept 2022CRLP/3086/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashment of criminal proceedings initiated for forgery and cheating. Despite the complainant lacking grievance against some petitioners and settlement of others, the Court held that strong prima facie evidence from police investigation justified continuing the case.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of criminal proceedings C.C. No. 232 of 2013 was dismissed.

Gadari Luther Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

[^32se ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶8

cRt MINAL P ETtTt ON NO: 3086 OF 2018

¶9

Between:

¶10

Gadari Luther, S/o Benlimin, aged 48 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o. H.No. 32167., L.B.Nagar., Shapur Nagar., Quthbullapur, Medchal District

¶11

N.Chandra Sekhar, S/o N. Ramesh Babu, aged 28 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 1 1-279., Sanjeev Gandhi Nagar., Shapur Nagar., IVledcha l-lt4alkajgiri District

¶12

N.Ramseh Babu, Sio N. Nageshwar Rao, aged 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 1'1-279., Sanjeev Gandhi Nagar., Shapur Nagar., IVledcha l-lvlalkajgiri District

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad,

¶16

Koti Anji Reddy, S/o Late K.Laxma Reddy, aged 67 years, Occ: Retd. Addl. Director of Civil Supply Dept. Ryo. H.No. 1-4-62lG., Snehapuri Colony., Street No. 01 ., Hubsiguda., Hyderabad

¶17

..,RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 pteaSed to Quash the Proceedings in C.C.No.232 of 2013 on the file of the lV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad in the interest of Justice.

¶19

l.A. NO: I OF 2018

¶20

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including personal Appearance of the

¶21

petitioners in C.C.l' o 232 of 2013 on the file of the lV Adcll. Chief lVletropolitan Magistrate at Hyder:bad, pending disposal of the criminal p,:tition.

¶22

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2018

¶23

Between:

¶24

Koti Anji Red, ly, S/o Late K.Laxma Reddy, aged 67 years, Oc,:: Retd. Addl. Director of Ci^,il Supply Dept. R/o. H.No. 1-4-62lG , Snehal:uri Colony., Street No. 01., Hubs iguda., Hyderabad

¶25

...PETlTlCNERi^{iiES TONDENT} No.2

¶26

AND

¶27

Gadari Luthe , S/o Benjimin, aged 48 years, Occ: Busint:ss, R/o. H.No. 32167., L.B.Na€ar., Shapur Nagar., Quthbullapur, I,4edchal District

¶28

N.Chandra Sr,khar, S/o N. Ramesh Babu, aged 28 yean;^,Jccr: Business, R/o. H.No. 11-27€., Sanjeev Gandhi Nagar., Shapur Naga,., IVerdchal-Malkajgiri District

¶29

N.Ramseh Bi bLr, S/o N. Nageshwar Rao, aged 4t) yean;,^(lcc: Business, Fyo. H.No. 11-27€., Sanjeev Gandhi Nagar., Shapur Naga-., Merdchal-Malkajgiri District

¶30

...RES^PON DE: l.lTS;/PETITIONERS

¶31

The State of^- elangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Figh Court at Hyderabad.

¶32

...RESiPONI)E:NT'RESPONDENT

¶33

Petition undt r Section 320 (2) Rlw 482 of Cr.P.C pray ng that in the circumstances stat( d in the lVemorandum of Grounds of Orimiral Petition, the High Cou( may b -. pleased to compromise and Quash the Proceedings in C.C.No.232 of 2013 on the file of the Learned lV Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyder. rbad in the interest of lustice.

¶34

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2018

¶35

Petition und( r Section 320 (6) Rlw 482 of Cr.P.C pray ng that in the circumstances stat( d in the lt4emorandum of Grounds of Oriminal Petition, the High Court may be rleased To permit the petitioner to compc,und the offence with the respondent No 0'1 to 03 herein/accused and Quash the Proceedings in C.C.No.232 of 2016 on the file of the Learned lV Addl. Chief l\4.t/t at Hyderabad for the offence punisha rle U/s. 417, 419, 420, 465, 471, r/w 1:20-U., IPC and Sec. 9

¶36

Essential Commodities Act and also Clause 14 and 15 r/w Annexure -ll of A.P State PDS ( Control), Order 2008 in the interest of Justice.

¶37

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C. Damodar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 .

¶38

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶39

THE ]IONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NA.C'I!TIJUN ( RIMINAL PETITION No.3O86 OF il()i 8

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

The per itroners/A3 to A5 are seeking qr.tashment of C.C.No.232,rf 20i3 on the file ol IV Adclitio:ral Chief Metropolitan . {agistrate, Hyderabad.

¶42

The de- acto complainant has filed ri 1;ri.'a.te complaint under Sectior 2OO Cr.P.C., on the file of IV i,1<:itional Chief Metropolitan lagistrate on the follorving linr:s

¶43

Accusec No. 1, when he was rn orking as IJr:pt. ty Tahsildar, Civil Supplies (Enforcement) in the office of t.r: Di:;trict Civil Supply Officr, Ranga Reddy, has obtainecl pink rtrtion card bearing No.Pr.P 167666500142 on his nanre. Th,: ration card can be used for multiple pr.irposes like prool of residence for taking passp( rt, for opening bank account, for c,trtlin ng driving licence and fc r getting documents registereci etc

¶44

A1, whc is having supervisory control over qeneration and distribution o- ration cards and rvho is expected',o se,: that true and correct^rr rtion cards are given after giving F,roper addresses etc., himselP fis fiIed a wryElg declaration conr:r:aling the facts

¶45

¶46

in violation of clause 4(21 ol the A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2008 and instigated his wife/A2 to take another ration card for the family. On his instigation, A2 has given false declaration about the address and family members and obtained another ration card. if any one of the particulars mentioned in the deciaration for obtaining the ration card are found to be false, criminal action as envisaged under Section 9 of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶47

The fact of A'2 had obtained another ration card in her name in addition to the ration card, which was given to A1, came to light u,hen .A2 has signed a registered lease deed bearing No.733 of 2OO7 exccuted on 18.10.2007 before the Sub-Registrar, Quuthbullahpur. The signature on the ration card is not tallied u,ith the signature attested on the lease deed on 18.10.2007. Th-e signature attested on the lease deed dated IB.IO.2OO7 was in Telugu, whereas the signature on the ration card filed by A.2 was in English. Thereby, it was realized that A2 fraudulently, dishonestly, intentionally and in contravention of the rules of the Essential Commodities Act, obtained the ration card by giving fake residentia,l address.

¶48

¶49

The de- acto complainant has filed the cornpl;.int before the Court un ler Section 200 Cr.P.C., stating t lrl the accused has committe C offence under Sections 24. 2- :l+. 35, 1208, 199 , 406, 46 5 of IPC read u,ith Section 9 c f I he Essential Commodities \ct. The said complaint u,as rr:fe r-r','i to the^police by the learne( Magistrate and on receipt of^'-he' ;rrrne, the police have registere I a case in Crimei No.159 of 2l.O 12' fc,r tre offence urrder Section; 24,25,34, 35, 1208, 199,406. 46:> ol IPC read with Section ') of the Essential Commoditics AcL. D,uring the course of inve stigation, police have recorde,l the statements of the de-facto :omplainant, u.ho is also r.r' rrl.:i'r I i r-r the civil supplies depi rtment, and also recorded th e s,1 atements of LWs.2 to 9, w ro are the officials. Finally, char;1r: r;heet is filed against A1 ant I A.2

¶50

In additi rn to the charge sheet filed bv the p:1ice against A1 and 42, lolice have also filed additiona. c halge sheet against A3 to A5 stating that police have alread1, fik:d charge sheet on Ol.l'.',.2O12 against A1 and A2 and dunng the cor:.rse of further inv:stigation, the Sub-Registrar of ()urthbullahpur (LW.S) has sta-ed that A2 and A3 and another person by name Srinivasulu (w ho is not traceable) have executed r,t lease deed

¶51

¶52

bearing document No.733 of 2OO7 in fawour of 44. The Deputy Commissioner of GHMC, Quthbullahpur circle has stated that the address i.e. door number etc., furnished by A3 is not found in the records. LW.B is the original owner of plot No.G106 in Sy.No.329/9 and 329 l7 at Gajularamaram Viilage, Quthbullahpur.^{However,A2 and} 43 in collusion with 44 and A5 have fraudulently executed a lease deed against the property belonging to LW.B and committcd fraud. LW.B has stated that she never made any transaction u,ith the accused at any point of time in respect of her property.

¶53

B. It is mentioned in the additional charge sheet that LW.9 is the original owner of G 108 in plot No.329/ 1O of Gajulararnararn Village, Quthbullahpur Mandal. A2 and A3 in collusion with A4 and A5 have fraudulently executed a lease deed in respect of the property belonging to LW.9 and committed fraud. According to LW.9, he never made any transaction with the accused at any point of time in respect of his property.

¶54

It is also mentioned in the additional charge sheet that A3 in coilusion with A5 has executed lease deed in favour of A4 leasing out plots G1O6, G107, G10B and G109 admeasuring

200 square yar ds cach lor which A.3 used a bogus ralion card bearing No.PA) 1588297CO260 issued in thr: r.rlme of M Damodar S/o.^"ukaram. A3 has affixed his photollr;rptr against the r-rame of Da nodar rvhile executing the lease d:,'cl arLd forged the signature r s if he himself is Damodar thert'lr'', ccmmitted fraud

¶59

It is furtl rer mentioned in the charge shr'r I thrlt A3 is originally havin 3 ration card bearing No.PAP 158 311)5t)0053 in which his nar re is mentioned as Gadari Lu: lL,:r, S/o. G Benjimin, R/o D.No.32-167, L.B. Nagar, Shrrpur Nagar, Quthbullahpur,^{R.R. District. This card contains : lr: sign:rture} of A.1 as G. Lr- tl-rer. A3, who has fraudulertlv r'-r-'at:d lcase deed in favour rf 44 belonging to LWs.B and 9 lrrrr; oroduced a faise residen ial address before the ii rl,-Registrar, Quthbullahpur,^{rnentioning his residential adclr,:s,s ;ls Door} No.13-49/2, Srdharshan Reddy Nagar, Chint:el, \Mald No.3, Quthbullahpur^{District. According to} the^{statern:r Lt of LW.7,} the Deputl. Conmissioner, GHME, Quthbuliahprrr. tre door number mentior red by 43 is not existing.

¶60

¶61

The investigation of police further revealed that A3 and A5 a-re having close personal relations rvith each other. A3 and A5 and one Srinivasulu (not traceable) even though they are not the owners of the plots, designed an evil plan to grab the land belonging to LWs.S and t have executed registered lease deeds bearing No.733 of 2OO7 in favour of 44, who is the son of A5. A5, who is one of the witnesses, in the lease deed is the father of A4 and employee of A3. A1 being the officer of the civil supplies department conspired with A5, who is fair price shop dealer and kerosene dealer, in his^jurisdiction and created lease deed on the property belonging to LWs.B and 9. A5, in turn, arranged his assistalts working in his shop i.e., A3 and one Srinivasulu and arranged false deed in favour ol his son/A4 and committed fraud. A3 is working as assistant in the fair price shop of A5, acted as M. Damodar by registering the lease deed and allixed 43 photograph and executed lease deed in favour of A4, thereby both the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 417, 419,^42O, 465,^468, 47 L read with 1208 of IPC.

¶62

t2, On filing the additional charge^{sheet, the} learned^IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad^{has taken}

¶63

¶64

¶65

cognizance fo- tl-re oflence under Sections 419, +'.).O, 465, 164 and 47 1 IP I read <sup>/ith Section l2O IP(l against the petitioners,/AI io A5. Aggrieved by the sanrr'. the present petition is 1iler: for quashment on the following gr,runds:

¶66

As per tl re origina-l complaint, there is no grie'valce b1' the de facto comp lainant against the petitioners/All tr., A5 ar-rd the case bets.een the de-facto complainant arrd A 1 lmd A2 have alread;. been r ettled amicably outside the Court

¶67

Originall y. on a corriplaint filed bi 1he de-facto complainant z^(ase was registered against r\1 ar:rl 42, rvho are husband and lvlfe, alleging that apart from takitr,3 rr riltion card in the na:ne o A1. on the instigation of A1, who r,,ers vrorking as Deputy Tal-rsil luir, Civil Supplies (Enforcement), A'2 his rvrfe has also taken an>ther ration card bearing No.l)AP rBBl16A0 163 and charge s heet was filed against A I and \1,t c r.rly ona complaint sivr n by the de-facto complainant anJ subsequently, it is reported r hirt the dispute between the de-fa,:rr> complainant and Ai and A I ivas settled out side the Court arr i<:ablv and the case uras closr d

¶68

¶69

i 5. In the meanwhile, the Inspector of Police has continued the investigation in the same crime i.e., Crime No.lS9 of 2012 arrd filed additional charge sheet againsr the petitioners by showing them as A3 to A5. Now it is reported that the de-facto complainant has no objection in case if the petition is al1orved. No compromise petition is filed in the Court seeking recording of compromise by the de-facto complainant ard the petitioners/A3 to A5. Even otherwise, the question lr'ould be whether the de-facto complainant can enter into compromise with the petitioners/A3 to A5 or whether the de-facto complainant can report that he has no objection to aliow the petition filed by A3 to A5 and to quash C.C.No.232 of 2Ol3 agair-rst them.

¶70

On perusal of the charge sheet fiied against A.3 to A5, u'ho are the petitioners herein, in the complaint filed by the de-facto complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., there is no^grievance against the petitioners/A3 to A5. The de-facto complainant has not alleged anything against the^{petitioners/A3} to A5 herein.

¶71

During the course of investigation^{by the police,} in^respect of A1 and A2, the police have redized that A3 to^{A5 werealso}

¶72

¶73

committed ol'f< n,.:es punishable under Sections 41!), '120,^465, 468 and 47 I r:ad u,ith Section 1208 IPC. Even though the defacto complair ant has no grievance against ,\3 to A5, the charge sheet li erl against them cannot be quaskre rl summarily, on the ground tllat there is no complainant.^'I'Lu' i:rireinal law cart set into m,rtion by anybody even a person r,r,h c, is rot at all connectecl to ti e offence, as all the offences a-lleg1ed against the petitioners are cognizable in nature. When it r:omes to the notice that a r ognizable offence has been comrr tl.ed and the said cognizable olfence sha1l be investigated into, tried into, so that truth or ot rcnvise of the allegations of the c)-r arges; levelled against the peti -ioners can be revealed in the^{r:rial ()ourt.}

¶74

Tl-re police investigation has revealed that ,A2 alrd ,\3 along with one Sriniv rsulu, u,hose whereabouts is not kr-rov,n, have executed certai r lease deeds in favour of A4 fr 1..r.<.[ulently by giving the fake rcldress and by using fake ration ,:rrrls. As per the statement of 1y7.7, the Deputy Commissiorre r of GHME, Quthbullahpur,^{the addressshou,nby A3 was no. found in the} record. The sai I acldress was found in the ration c,lrd, which A3 has taken f^'audulently in collusion with A I . w ho vvas in charge of giving oi ration cards. LW.8 is the originzrl owner of

¶75

¶76

-r--E

¶77

Plot No.G106 situated in Sy.No.329l9 and 329 l7 ar Gajularamaram Village. Similarly, LW.9 is the ou,ner of Plot No.G10B situated in Sy.No.329l9 and 329 l7 of the Gajularamaram vi1lage. In respect of these plots, r.r,ithout knowledge, without authority, without any authorization from LWs.B ared 9, A2 and ,{3 in collusion u,ith one Srinivasulu have executed registered lease deeds in favour of A4. A5 is the dealer of the fair price shop and 44 is working as weigh man. A3 in collusion with A5 has executed lease deeds in favour of 44 in respect of properties i.e., G106, G1O7, G108 and G1O9 each to the extent of 200 square yards by using bogus ration cards.

¶78

Police investigation also revealed that A3 has used the ration card issued in the name of one Damodar and affixed the photograph of 43 and he has also sigeed on the document as if one Damodar is executing the lease deed. Police have also gathered the original ration card standing in the name of A3 with his photograph and signature. It is also unearthed in the investigation by the police that A3 being the weigh man of A5 has been very active in all the transactions initiated by A5 and attested all the documents. Police have collected information

¶79

¶80

I I I I

¶81

that A.3 has srgned as many as 6 doclrmetl -s as^witness belonging to A >.

¶82

Therefor, , considerirlg the investigation tl,rnt: by^the police, the re is abundant evidence pointing^()ut ilr Iavour of the petitioners th rt thev have forged the documertt.s by using fictitious ratio: r^,,rards created and came into exis-ence, with the help of A 1 zrnd executed lease deeds in respect ol tl'Le Jrroperties belonging to L Vs.B, 9 and others. When sLLCh str(.)ng evidence is available be ole the Court, merely on the 6lrouncl thzrt the defacto complain rrrt has no objection or no grieva:-r:er ag,ainst the petitioners asl :ing the Court to quash the cas,: agieinst the petitioners is n ct tenable

¶83

In order o quash a criminal case against -he petitioners, the petitior-rers are expected to show that even if all the contents of the complai rt or the charge sheet are ac cep:r'tl to be true, there shall not b,: any case against them. In the r;a.se on hand, as discussed rbove, entire charge sheet deno -r's sprecifically mentioned rolt played by each of the accused by talling fake ration cards in collusion rvith 41. Therefore. u'hen such is the strong eviden:e pointing out that the petiiioners have ) ) .---

¶84

¶85

committed offence of forgery and using the said documents as original and other connected offences, this Court cannot quash the C.C.No.232 of 2073 against the petitioners.

¶86

The Honble Supreme Court in a celebrated judgment decided betu'een State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and othersl, 1-ras formulated certarn guidelines under u'hich Court can consider quashment of criminal case. The guidelines are:

¶87

"(a) \,here the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are take_n at their face value and accepted in their entircty do nol pima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

¶88

(b) $,hcrc the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disciose a cognizable offence,^justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) oI thc Code except under an order of a Magistrate !,r,ithin the purvieu,of Section 155(2) of the Code;

¶89

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

¶90

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without arl order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) ofthe Code;

¶91

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no^prudent person can ever reach a^just conclusion that there is sufficient^ground for proceeding against the accused;

¶92

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of^the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act^(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the^Code or

¶93

'^{tggz eln oo+}

¶94

the c(ncc n(t:l Act, providjng cfll(ircioLrs redrcss [oi th' {jri(:'ancc of lhe :ig!l|ie c( parl\ i

¶95

($ wh :rr' a criminal proceeding is manifestly atten(l(:(l with mala fde^and /^{r r\'here the proceedingis maliciouslf insit tt ed ,vith an} ulterior- m )tive for rvreaking vengeance on the rrccusel and rvith a vieu to spi.e him clue to private and personal gruclge.'

¶96

On per usal of the allegations alleged aginst the petitioners, t:lcre is strong prima facie cas() against the

¶97

accused. her ce . none of thc' illustrations r.ent r r1,-'d above will come to the re s<:ue of the petitioners

¶98

Ir-r r,ieu, rf the discussion made above, anrl Dasing on the rationale laid Cown by the authorities cited al;or t:. c()nsidering the fact that here is strong and prima facie ey d,ln(:e against the petitioner s in the form of charge sheet, statement of witnesses anr documents collected by the ptLice, the case registered agar nst the petitioners cannot be cluasherl.

¶99

In the re l-rlt, the criminal petition is dismissr:rl.

¶100

Miscellar eous petitions, if any, shall stim<l ctr sec..

¶101

¶102

To,

¶103

SD/.K.ONESIM DE:I)U]Y REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' CaD SiECTION OFFICER

¶104

The lV Additic 1al Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate at Hyderabad.}

¶105

The Station H ruse Officer, Nillakunta^{PoliceStation,Hyrlerab;adCity.}

¶106

One CC to Sri C Damodar One CC to Sri C Damodar CC to Sri C Damodar Sri C Damodar C Damodar Damodar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶107

One CC to Sri C Damodar One CC to Sri C Damodar CC to Sri C Damodar Sri C Damodar C Damodar Damodar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to tl- 3 Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for the S.ate of -felangana at} Hyderabad. [C UT]

¶108

Two CD Copit s

¶109

(Along with a CoPy of Joint Memo)

gbr A"--

HIGH COUR

DATED: 07109t2022

ORDER

CRL.P.No.3086 of 2018

¶116

,,/
1 tr J{[ 2u3
$:
/--A
iq_)
,:j/
$
1,0 \ tV n--'

¶117

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶118

IN Tl{E HIGH COURT OF JUf,,ICATURE AT TIYDERABA.D For the State of Telangana^and the State of Andhra Pradesb.

¶119

	Crl.P.No: oF2017
Bet	\r,ecn:-
I	GadariLutherS/o.Benjimin Agedabout48years,Occ: Bur;iness R/o.H.No.32-167,L.B.Nagat',ShapurNagar Quthbullapur,^{Medchal-lrlaikajgiriDistrict.}
')	N.ChardraSekharS/o.N.RanteshBabu Agedabout28years,Occ: Bur;iness R/o.H.No.11-279,SanjayGaldhiNagar ShapurNagar,Quthbullapur MedchaJ-MalkajgiriDistrict.
3	N.RameshBabuS/o.N.NageshwarRao Agedabout48years,Occ: Btrsiness R/o.H.No.11-279, Sanjay GandhiNagar Shapur Nagar,Quthbullapur Medchal-MaikajgiriDistrict. ...Petitioners
	ATJD
1.	The StateoITelangana Rep. byitsPublicProsecuror HighCourtatHyderabacl.
')	KotiAnjiReddyS/o.LateK.Laxma Reddy Agedabout67years Occ:Retd. Addl.Directorr.rfCivil SupplyDept R/o. H.No.l-4-621G,Snehapuri Colony StreetNo. 1,Hubsiguda,l{ydi:rabad. ..Resoondents

¶120

JOINT MEMO FILPD I}Y THE PETITIONERS AND THE RESI>ONDENT No.2

¶121

It is submitted that the relpondent No.2 has filed a private complaint before the Learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad stating that the accused No.1 while working as a Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Suppiies^{(enforcement)} in the office^of the District Supply Officer, Ranga Recidy District had obtained two pink ration cards by making fa.lse entl ies in ratio,.r shop No. 665 &¹¹⁶ and in a fraud.ulent manner for th,-^purpose of creating identity^procf and address proof for registration cf^{documentsin respect of tJle plots} of the 2"d respondent and committed frzLud and basing on^{which the} police registered a case in Cr.No. lstt/20l2 of Nallal..ernta Police Station, Hyderabad for the offen,:e pur:rishable under^section417,

¶122

¶123

¶124

419, 42o, 46;, 471 rlw 12o-B IPC and Se,:.9 cl Essential Commodities P:t and also clause-l4 &¹⁵ r/rv^Arne.<utre II^of A.P.State PDS Control), Order 2008 against the accus,r(l l{o.I &² and after invest gation the police filed charge sheet vide C.tl.ltIo.[;24 of 2012. Subsequr ntly the police filed additiona.l charge sh,:t't in^()r.No. 159 ot 2Ol2 o Nallakunta Police Sration, Hyderabad al{:dnst the petiLioners herr in and the Learned Magistrate iI a rourine mirnner taken cognizanc i of lhe above saic offences artd registered th,l case al C.C.No. 232 of l013 on 6.4.2013. It is further submitt(id thrtt drring the pendency r f the above case, on the intervention r,i the well rvishers, relativ, s and common i':iends the petitioners arcl th: 2"d respondent ha,, : compromised the matter outside the c r:urt arld settled their dis1,u1g. It is also submitted that the petition€rsr an,l the 2"d respondcnt I ave also entered into a Memorandum of t}r::,promise and filed aflldav :s belbre this Hc:-.'ble court to that e{fecr:.

¶125

In r,jr:u. o the above statcd facts ar:d circlrm:;tiu Lc:rs, it is tirerefore pr:L1ed t1-rat this Hon'ble court may be pleased trr re :olrl the compromise and quash thc procerdrngs in C.C.No.232 o[.]o l I ol rhe file ol the Lear; ed lV Additionar Chicf Metlopolitan Mrlirsitrare at Hvder:Lbad itr th, intcrest ofJustc:.

¶126

h'k/LPetitioner No. 1 @t^{A^--a-} Petitioner No.2 fl,, Petitioner No.3

¶127

W.---Respondent

¶128

lLd /,i,,r4
/

¶129

.+ ----,,/' (a Counsel for the P :titioners

¶130

Counsel for the Rt:sp,rric rrrLt Nc.2

¶131

-.--.--

Gadari Luther v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gadari Luther 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

KolaganiSubhashChander Vs The State of Telengana and another

B.Narsimhulu Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Azeemuddin Vs The State of Telangana

Munige Narsimulu Vs M. Venkateshwar Rao, (Major)

Takkars , Prathap Sailaja And Another Vs the State of Telangana And Another

Bashetty Chinnanna Vs a. Narsaiah and Another