Disposed

Batch Satish v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Jul 2022CRLP/5361/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. instead of quashing the FIR. It directed police to issue notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., follow Arunesh Kumar guidelines, and not insist on personal appearance unless necessary.

What did the court decide?

Notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. ordered; petitioners not to be insisted for personal appearance unless required in writing with reasons; investigation to proceed.

Batch Satish Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF^JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR^SUMALATHA

¶5

C RIMINAL PETITION NO: 5361^{OF 2022}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Batch Satish, S/o. Batch Jagadish @^{Jagadish, Aged about 42yearc,} Occ.Business, F/o. H. No. 1-3-180/8/2,^{VenkateswarColony, Medak} District.

¶8

Kasireddy Shaik Reddy, S/o. Narayan Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Private Service, R/o. Thogita Village, Ghanpur Mandal,^Medak District.

¶9

...Petitioners/Accused 5 and 4

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, represented^{by its PublicProsecutor,High} Court for the Statebf Telangana,^{High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.}

¶12

...Respondent No.1

¶13

Kovvuri Srinivas, S/o. Pentaiah, Aged.^{Major, Occ. Manager,M/s.} Gayatri Rice Mills, Thogita Village, Ghanpur^{Mandal, MedakDistrict.}

¶14

...Defacto ComplainanURespondent No.2

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of CriminalPetition,} the High Court may be^pleased to^{quashthe FIR No. 110 of 2022 dated} 03-06-2022 on the file of Police Station^{Haveli Ghanpur, againstthe} Petitioners/Accused 5 and 4.

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in^the circumstances stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof CriminalPetition'} the High Court may be^pleased to stay the^{investigation} of^{the crime} registered against the Petitioners in FIR No.^{1 10} ol^{2022 dated03-06-}

¶18

2022, on the file of Police Station Haveli,^{Ghanpur, MedakDistrict, pending} disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusingthe Memorandum} of Grounds of Criminal Petition^{and upon hearingthe argumentsof M/s} Vijay B Paropakari, Advocate for the Petitioners and^{the AssistantPublic} Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and^{of the Respondent No.2} not appearing in^person or by^Advocate.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE^{CHILLAKURSUMALATHA}

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5361^{of 2022}

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.^{is filed} seeking the Court to quash the proceedings in Crime^No.110of 2022 of Haveli Ghanpur Police Station, Medak District.

¶25

Heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners/ Accused Nos.4 and 5 as rve11 as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appea;ing for respondent No.1 - State.

¶26

In the light of the limited request made by learned counsel for the petitioners, issuance of notice to respondent No.2/defacto complainant is felt not necessary.

¶27

4 . Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence whatsoever and their names were not figured in the FIR. However, basing on the alleged confessional statements given by Accused Nos. 1 and 2, they were figured as Accused Nos.4 and 5 in the Remand Report. Learned counsel also states that even the allegations that are levelled against the petitioners, as per the contents of the said Remand

¶28

¶29

Dr. CSLJ Cd.P.No.536l of2022

¶30

Report, are not grave in nature and,^{therefore, protectionfrom} arbitrary arrest of the^{petitioners by the police ma1'be granted.}

¶31

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor^{submits that a} direction for issuance of notice under^{Section 41-A Cr'P.C. may be} issued with a rider that the^{petitioners would cooperatewith the} investigation.

¶32

Having regard to the said submission,^{this CriminalPetition} is disposed of with the foilowing directions:

¶33

( 1) The Station House Officer, Haveli Ghanpur^Police Station/ Investigating Officer shall issue^{notice under} Section 41-A Cr.P.C. before^{proceeding with the case'}

¶34

(2)The Station House Officer, Haveli Ghanpur^Police Station/ Investigating Officer is directed^{tofoliow the} guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in^ARNESH KUMAR vs. STATE OF BIHAR -^{(2074l.8 SCC273.}

¶35

(3) The Station House Officer, Haveli Ghanpur^Police Station/ Investigating Officer shall^{not insist for personal} appearance of the petitioners/Accused^{Nos.4 and 5 during} the course of investigation in^{Crime No.1 lO of 2022of} Haveli Ghanpur Police Station,^{Medak District, unless their} presence is required' In case such^{presenceis required,} notice has to be^given in writing^{indicating the reason for} which the presence of the^petitioners/ Accuse

¶36

---'-'

¶37

¶38

Dr. CSL.I Crl.P.No.536l of2022

¶39

is sought for. However, it is made clear that investigation may go on.

¶40

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if aly, shall stand closed.

¶41

¶42

SD/.T.SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTtrAR /

¶43

//TRUE COPY// sEciloN drrrc=*

¶44

To, 1 . The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,^{at Medak.} 2 . The Station House Officer, Haveli Ghanpur^{Police Station, Medak} District. 3. Two CCs to the Assistant^{Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Stateof} Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 4. One CC to M/s Vijay B Paropakari,^Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies 6. One Spare Copy MMK bs

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310712022

ORDER

-1t.;Si'riq
7-a
13 JUL 2Si2
.;l
fuse

¶50

CRLP.No.5361 ot 2022

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶52

%
r/

Batch Satish v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Batch Satish 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Philip Joseph , Yousuf Vs The State of Telangana and another

Meesa Chalapathi Rao and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Palle Giri Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Mushtaq Malik Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Sri Kothuri Yellaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Gaddam Sampath Reddy Vs The State of Telangana