Disposed

S.Sripal Reddy and 3 Ors. v. the State of Ts., Rep. by P.P. and Another

Telangana HC22 Jul 2022CRLP/4308/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court disposed of a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding offences under Sections 354, 323, and 504 IPC. Instead of quashing the case, the court directed the police to conduct the investigation expeditiously following the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and refrained from taking coercive steps against the petitioners during the inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Directed the police to complete the investigation expeditiously under Section 41A Cr.P.C. and directed no coercive steps, including arrest, against the petitioners.

S.Sripal Reddy and 3 Ors. Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY

¶4

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR. JTJSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4308 OF 2017

¶9

Between:

¶10

S.SRIPAL REDDY & 3 ORS, S/o.Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 37years, Occ: Business, Ryo,H.No.3-3-108/17, New Friends Colony Phase-2, Near Janapriya Utopia Apartments, Rajendranagar, Hyderguda, R.R.District.

¶11

S.Venugopal Reddy,, S/o.S.Manohar Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.4-3-146-2, Attapur Pillar.No.120, Attapur Ring Road, Somi Reddy Nagar, Hyderguda, Rajendranagar, R.R.District.

¶12

Bharath [email protected],, S/o.Badrachalam, Aged about 23 years, Occ: Business, R/o.3-3-80/18, Erraboda Temple, Hyderguda, Rajendranagar, R.R.District.

¶13

P.Madhu Sudhan Reddy,, S/o. Late Yadi Reddy, Aged about'4o^years, Occ: Business, Ryo. H.No.3-5-12411 , Keshav Nagar, Hyderguda, Rajendranagar, R.R.District.

¶14

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOs 1 to 4

¶15

AND

¶16

1 . THE STATE OF TS., REP. BY P.P. & ANOTHER, Rep. by P.S., Rajendranagar, R.R.District Through Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad.

¶17

Smt.Ravula Vijaya Jangaiah,, W/o.Jangaiah,Aged 38^years, Occ: Corporator of Atlapur, Rl/o.H.No.3-3-36, Erraboda, Hyderguda, Ra.iendranagar, R.R.District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 against the Petitioners/Accused.No.1 to 4 in Crime No. 1082 ol 2017 on the file of the P.S, Rajendranagar, R..R.District.

¶20

LA. NO: I OF 2017(CRLPMP. NO: 4'176 OF 2017)

¶21

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^proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused.No.1 to 4 in Crime No. 1082 of 2017 on the file of the P.S, Rajendranagar,^{R..R.District.}

¶22

!.A.^{No:2 oF-?012(QBLPMP..NO:8230 OF 20171}

¶23

Between:

¶24

Smt.Ravula Vijaya Jangaiah,, W/o.Jangaiah,Aged 38 years, Occ: Corporator of Attapur, Ryo.H.No.3-3-36, Erraboda, Hyderguda, Rajendranagar, R.R.District.

¶25

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.2

¶26

AND

¶27

S.SRIPAL REDDY & 3 ORS, S/o.Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 37years, Occ: Business, Ryo.H.No.3-3-'108/17, New Friends Colony Phase-2, Near Janapriya Utopia Apartments, Rajendranagar, Hyderguda, R.R.District.

¶28

S.Venugopal Reddy,, S/o.S.Manohar Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Business, Ryo.H.No.4-3-146-2, Attapur Pillar.No.120, Attapur Ring Road, Somi Reddy Nagar, Hyderguda, Rajendranagar, R.R.District.

¶29

Bharath [email protected],, S/o.Badrachalam, Aged about 23 years, Occ: Business, R/o.3-3-80/18, Erraboda Temple, Hyderguda, Rajendranagar, R.R.District.

¶30

P.Madhu Sudhan Reddy,, S/o. Late Yadi Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.3-5-124l1, Keshav Nagar, Hyderguda, Rajendranagar, R.R.District.

¶31

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶32

THE STATE OF TS., REP. BY P.P. & ANOTHER, Rep. by P.S., Rajendranagar, R.R.District Through Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶33

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 vacate the orders dated 13.06.2017 passed in Cd. P.No.4308/20'17,

¶34

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing lhe Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K L B KUMAR ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. I and of Sri T. Krishna Murthy Devarakonda, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶35

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶36

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶37

CRIMINAL PETITION No.43 O8 of2O17

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

This Criminal^petition is filed under Section 4g2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 4 for quash of proceedings against them in Crime No.1Og2 of 2017 of Rajendranagar police Station registered for the offence under Sections 354, 323, S04 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶40

The facts in brief as can be gathered from the record available before this Court are as under:

¶41

a) Ot 02.06.2017 at 2.OO pM the respondent No. 2 _ d.e_facto complainant has lodged a complaint before the Rajendranagar Police Station stating that she is the Corporator of Attapur. On 02.06.2017 as per the plan the flag will be hoisted at Gandhi Statue, Hyderguda by coming in bike rally from TRS party office at Attapur. While the de-facto compiainant along with other party workers, were waiting at TRS party office, the flag was hoisted at Gandhi statue apart from hoisting national flag at Government school. The d"e-facto complainant asked Mrs.Subash Reddy as to why they did not wait till their arrival

¶42

¶43

i.-"

¶44

for hoisting^{the flag at differentplaces'On which the accused} persons abused^{de-facto complainant by placingtheir handson} her chest^{and outraged hermodestYWhen the husband of the} de-factocomplainant^{has intervened'the accused have alsobeat} him with^{handsand pushed in the presence of all party} workers

¶45

Based on^{the complaint' a case in Crime No' 1082 of 2017} was registered^{for the offencesunderSections354' 323'504} read with^{Section 34 of the Indian PenaiCode' Aggrievedby the} proceedings in^{Crime No' 1O82ol 2Ol7 of Rajendranagar Police} Station, the^petitioners -^{accusedNos' 1 to 4 have [r1ed the} present criminal Petition'

¶46

4 Now the Point^{for determinationis:}

¶47

"Whether^the proceedings^against petitioners /^{accused Nos'1 to 4 in Cr'No'1082 of} 2Ol7 of^{RajendranagarPolice Station' can be} quashed^{under Section482 of ttrc Code of Criminal} Procedure?

¶48

Learned^{counsel for the petitionershas submitted that} the petitioners^{are known to family of respondent No'2 since} long time and^{at the time of GHMCelections'on the requestof} respondent No.2 -^{de-facto complainantand hcr husban{by}

¶49

¶50

name Jangaiah, the^{petitioners have advanced an amount of} Rs.30 lakhs to the de-facto complainant and^{her husband, but} they failed to repay the said amount.^{On repeated requests} respondent No.2 - de-facfo complainant^{and her husbandhave} issued five cheques for Rs.24 lakhs^{but three cheques out of five} cheques have been dishonoured under^{the caption "payment} stopped by drawer". The^{petitionershave issued iegal notices to} respondent No.2 - de-facto complainant^{and her husband, who} have developed grudge against the^{petitionersand filed this} false complaint to escape from the^{liabilities and to avoid the} entire loan amount by creating^{a concocted story.}

¶51

It is also submitted that as seen^{from the complaint,the} abuses were referring to a male^{personbut not respondent No.2} and it is highly unimaginable to commit the^{allegedoffence} towards a lady corporator in the^public.

¶52

It is also submitted that the respondent^{No.2 has misused} her powers being a Corporator in implicating^{the petitionersin a} false case and the ingredients of Sections^354, 323,504^read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code^{do not attract against} the^pqtitioners and finally^{prayed to quash the proceedings} I

¶53

against them in Crime No.10B2 of 2Ol7 of Rajendranagar police Starion.

¶54

B. Heard learned counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as learned Assistant public prosecutor.

¶55

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has lairly submitted that if a directior-r is given to the Police to following the procedure under Section 41_A of the Code of Criminal Procedure as directed by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihart, the interest of the petitioner r.vill be protected.

¶56

As seen from the record, on account of interim stay orders granted by this Court, the investigating agency could not proceed ahead in concluding the investigation. So until and unless the investigation in this case is completed, the truth or otherwise of the allegations leveled against the petitioners cannot be determined at this premature stage, in this case, where there are some factual issues are also involved.

't /

r {2014) 8 scc 273

I 1. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, the nature of the offences alleged against the petitioner and also the stage of investigation, the crirninal pctition can be disposed of with follolving directions.

¶61

The criminal petition is disposed of with a direction to the Police to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible by following the procedure as contemplated in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (supra) scrupulously. The Police concerned erre directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioners including thcir .rrrest in Crime No. 1082 of .2017 of Rajendranagar Police Station. The petitioners herein are also directed to cooperate with the investigating agency in concluding the investigation.

¶62

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

¶63

shall stancl closecl.

¶64

¶65

Sd/-L.SIVA PARVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶66

SECTION OFFICER

¶67

To,

¶68