Dismissed

Pathlavath Ravi alias Ravinder v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Dec 2022CRLP/333/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged criminal proceedings alleging his land encroachment led to deceased's suicide. Petitioner argued false case and asserted land rights. Court dismissed petition finding disputed facts of abetment determined only after evidence is adduced.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; proceedings against the petitioner in SC. No. 400 of 2021 not quashed.

Pathlavath Ravi alias Ravinder Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEI\iIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 333 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Pathlavath Ravi @ Ravinder, S/o. Hariya Aged about 35 years, Occ. Agriculture Rl/o Dhararam Village of Lingala Mandal, Nagarkurnool Distri ct.

¶8

...PETITIONERYACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, through Lingala Police Station, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶11

Nenavath Chitti, Wo. Pentaiah Aged about 29 years, Occ. Agriculture, Fi/o. Dhararam Village, Lingala Mandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

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 call for the records and^quash the same in the^proceedings in SC. No. 400 ol 2021 on the file of Judicial Megistrate of First Class at Achampet.

¶14

l.A. NO: 2OF 2022

¶15

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 stay of all further^proceedings in SC. No. 400 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Achampet.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri CH VENKAT RAMAN, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri Chintapalli Srinivas, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

:-7

¶19

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAI PETITION No.333 OF 20122

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Criminal Petition is hled to quash the^proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.400 of 202L on the hle of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Achampet.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that the acts of this petitioner resulted in the deceased committing suicide. The deceased had an extent of Acs.S.OO agricultural land in Sy.No.1068 under the limits of Dharmaram village, which was given by the Government. He was cultivating the land for the past 20 years. The petitioner/accused damaged the crop by ploughing and threatened that the land belongs to him. The deceased wanted to settle the issue in the presence of elders. However, the accused did not turn up. Again, when the deceased went to his land, the petitioner picked up quarrel and threatened saying that the land belongs to him and tfrreatened him to leave the premises. Being depressed with the acts of the petitioner/accused, deceased went to Lingala Revenue Office rmd carne to know that the land was mutated

¶23

¶24

in the name of the petitioner/accused, for which reason, he committed suicide on O2.O2.2O21 by consuming pesticide polson.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner iubmits that a fa,lse case is foisted against the petitioner and there is a total non application of mind by the Investigating Officer into the facts of the case. A suit was Iiled in the year 2Ol7 against the petitioner by the father of deceased, which was dismissed. The question of abetting suicide does not arise for the reason of the accused asserting his right over the land.

¶26

The complaint and the consequent investigation revealed that the accused had continuously threatened the deceased for entering into the land and also damaged the crop. Whether the said acts of continuously entering into the land and threatening the deceased with dire consequences amount to abetment in the given circumstances is a question of fact, which can be decided only during the course of tria-l. Though it appears that the petitioner was successful in^proceedings before the civil court as stated by the learned counsel for the

¶27

:'-^-----7 3

¶28

¶29

petitioner, wht:tht:r the civil proceedings culminated and attained hnalih, or during the course of such proceedings, the land was mutated in the name of the petitioner are all questions that can only be decided after evidence is adduced. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not hnd any grounds to quash the proceedings. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellant:orrs applications, if any, pending shalt stand closed. Sd/- G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' b-----SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Judiciar^{Magistrate of First Class at Achampet} 2 The Station House^{Officer, Lingal Police Station,Nagarkurnool"} 3 TwoccsbthePublicProsecutor,HighcourtforthestateofTelanganaat Hyderabad.[OUT] 4. One CC to^{Sri Ch Venkat Raman Advocate [OPUC]} 5. One CC to^{Sri Chintapally Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC]} 6. Two CD CoPies VH

HIGH COURT

KS, J

DATED: 1311212022

ORDER

CRLP.No.3.33, of 2022

¶36

r I{E SI; r<Q
o g ,ln[; i,':
-ra ,,,

¶37

Dismissin6; the Crl.P

¶38

dE
&o
4\o

Pathlavath Ravi alias Ravinder v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pathlavath Ravi alias Ravinder 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

Vuchidi Padma Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Jabeen Vs The State of Telangana

Sivakumar Guruprasad Vs State of Telangana and Another

Abhishek Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

D. Bhasker Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

Smt. Mahankali Indira Vasundhara and 3 others Vs The State of Telangana