Disposed

Sri Putta Govind Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Jul 2022CRLP/7167/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the petition to quash criminal proceedings involving property dispute allegations, directing police to complete investigation without coercive steps against the petitioner while adhering to Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Police directed to complete investigation without taking coercive steps including arrest against the petitioner.

Sri Putta Govind Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY rWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7167 OF 2017

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri Putta Govind Reddy, S/o Venkata Narsimha Reddy, Occ: Business, R/o 5-5-681, Abhyudaya Nagar, Chintalkunta, L.B.Nagar.

¶8

...PETITIONERYACCUSED NO.5

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep by SHO, PS Miyapur, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

¶11

Sri Uttam Akula, S/o Vijayamurthy Akula, Occ. Doctor, Rt/o Plot No 68, Sai Ram Nagar' Nallagandla' Serilingampally

¶12

..REspoNDENTs

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 616/201 7 on the file of the PS., Miyapur.

¶14

CRLPMP. NO: 7482 OF 2017

¶15

Petition under Section 482 o't Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in Crime No. 616/201 7 on the file of PS., Miyapur, pending disposal of the Crl.P.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sr:i PARSA ANANTH NAGESWAR RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None Appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

:]HE IION'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7167 of 2017

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner - accused No.5 for quash of the proceedings against him in Cr.No.616 of 2017 of Miyapur Polir:e Station registered for the offence under Sections 419 , 42O,^.168 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

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

¶23

a) On O8.Oti.2O17 at 6.00 PM the respondent No.2 - de-facto complainant has lodged a complaint before Miyapur Police Station aileging that his mother is the absolute owner of the plot N<r. 197 admeasuring 389 square yards in Sy. No.44/ i, Mathrusri Cooperative Society housing building society, Miyapur and that the accused have impersonated and created docunent:, and occupied his land and thereby cheated him.

¶24

b) Basr'd on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.616 of 2017 was reqistered for the offence under Sections 419, 42O, 468 and 4'71 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

¶26

Aggrieved by the proceedings in Crime No.616 of 2017, tl-re present criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.S for quash of the said proceedings against him on the following grounds:

¶27

a) The petitioner was falsely implicated in the case and the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence.

¶28

b) The petitioner has no interest in the property as evident from the documents. On entire reading of the complaint, no offence is made out against the petitioner.

¶29

4 . Now the point for determination is

¶30

"Whether the proceedings against petitioner/ accused No.S in Cr.No.616 of 2017 of Miyapur Police Station, can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as u,e11 as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶32

lrarned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are no allegations leveled against the petitioner and even if the contents of FIR are found to be correct, no offence can be made out. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that on account of stay orders

¶33

¶34

{

¶35

granted b;,^r 111.' Court, the investigation in this case is stalled and until ln,estigation is completed, truth or otherwise of the allegations ,cvt:led against the petitioner and other accused cannot be ascer-tained.

¶36

7 . [n 'ric,r' ,rf the above submissions and since the issues involved in this case are in respect of title of the immovable property, this Court at the stage of the FIR, cannot determine as to whether there is no case against the petitioner-accused No.S. This Court carr consider quashing of the FIR, if no cognizable offence is rnade out as per the contents of FIR. On perusal of contcnts of FIR, it is clear that the petitioner has created false document and occupied the property. Considering the same this Court is^,rf thc opinion that instead of curbing the litigation at this stage, an {)pportunity can be given to the Police to complete investigation to elicit the truth or otherwise of the atlegations leveled agairst the petitioner and file charge sheet.

¶37

Acr:ordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of by directing the I)olice concerned to complete the investigation to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible as the crime is rcgistered in the year 2O17. Ho$,ever, the Police concerned ,trt, directed not to take any_ coercive steps against

¶38

¶39

the petitioner including the arrest in Cr.No.6l6 of 2017 of MiYapur police Station and further directed to follow the dire ctions of the Hon,ble Supreme Court as contemplated in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Biharl. The petitioner is directed to cooperate with the Police investigation. concerned in completion ol_

¶40

As a sequel, the n riscellaneous Petitions' Fending if any, shai, stand closed.

¶41

(2014)B SCC 273

¶42

//TRUE COPYII

¶43

Sd/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶44

GD SECTION OFFICER

¶45

¶46