Dismissed

M.Mohan Rao, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Telangana HC16 Feb 2022CRLP/7259/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The court held that delay in complaint filing alone was insufficient for quashing and no justifiable grounds existed given the petitioner's behaviour in a related extraction case.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition dismissed; interim order vacated; miscellaneous applications closed.

M.Mohan Rao, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH^{DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^DT. JUSTICE^{CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA}

¶5

CRIMINAL P ETITION^{NO:7259 0F 2013}

¶6

Between:

¶7

M.Mohan Rao, S/o^{Krishna Rao, Occ: Business,FJo D'No.10-3-22, East Marredpally'} Secunderabad,

¶8

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra^{Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Courtof A P',} Hyderabad.

¶11

...RESPONDENT/

¶12

Petition under section^{482 of Cr.P.C.,prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the Memorandum of^{Groundsof criminal Petition,the High court may be pleasedto} quash the proceedings in S,T'C,No.2200^{o{ 2013' on the file of the XV Spl.Magistrate} Court, Secunderabad.

¶13

I.A. N O: 2 OF 2013^{(CRLPMP. NO:66} oF 2013)

¶14

Petition under section^{482 of cr.P.cpraying that in the circumstances statedin} the Memorandum of^{Groundsof criminalPetition, the Highcourt maybe pleased} to stay all further^{proceedingsin S,T C.No 2200 of 2013, on the file of the} XV Spl. Magistrate Court,^{Secunderabad.}

¶15

ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandumofGrounds of criminal Petition and^{upon hearing the argumentsof Sri V.V. Satish, Advocatefor the} Petitioner and the Assistant^{Public Prosecutor (TG), on behalf of the Respondent}

¶16

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶17

THE HON'B,E DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶18

CRI VIINAL PETITION No.7259 of 2O13

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Cr iminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seek ng the Court to quash the proceedings that are pending rgainst the petitioner in STC No.2200 rrf 2013 on the file of the Court of XV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶21

Heard the submission ol learned counsel for the petitioner irs r,r'el1 as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, rho is representing the respondent.

¶22

Learnr d counsel for the petitioner submits that rvhen the inciden , as alleged in the charge sheet, occurred on 29.04.2013 the complaint uras given on 26.06.2073 i.e. after LVz n onths and no explanation is given as to why such inor( inate delay occurred and, indeed, no such incident or curred, therefore, the proceedings have tolbe

¶23

quashed.

¶24

2 Dr. CSL,J Crl.P.No.?259 of20ll

¶25

Opposing the said submission, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor stated that basing on the aggressive behaviour of the petitioner, he rvas charged under Section 71 of the Hyderabad City Police Act and, therefore, the proceedings should not be quashed.

¶26

A perusal of the contents of the charge sheet goes to show that on 29.04.2013, the petitioner herein went to Tukaramgate Police Station and enquired the police about the status of his case and when it is informed that Final Report filed submitting as "Action dropped", he became wild ald picked up quarrel with the Inspector of Police, threatened him that he would not leave him and behaved indecently and committed nuisance in the chamber of the Inspector of Police. lt is also mentioned that the petitioner is involved in another case i.e. in an extraction case vide Crime No.195 of 2012 of Karkhana Police Station, where the allegations are that he beat the defacto complainant therein and extracted Rs.2,000/- and Ceil Phone. The allegations therein are also grave in nature. As far as this case ls concerned, this Court does not find any

¶27

¶28

D^('SI ,J ( rlP ( rt5,r()l :01.1

¶29

circumstan,:es, as mentioned in Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C., to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Merely because th,,re is delay in lodging the complaint, it cannot form basis . or quashing the proceedings. Whether the State would esta'rlishef its case beyond all reasonable doubt or not before the Court concerned is not a point to be discussed rere. As far as quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner are concerned, as this Court does not find any jr rstifiable grounds to do so, it holds that the Criminal P( tition deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

In th : result, this Criminal petition is dismissed. Interim or(Ler granted by this Court on 22.07.2013 shall stand vaca .ed.

¶31

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

¶32

any, shall ;tand closed.

¶33

SD/.K.SAILESHI ASSIS'TANT REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// & SE,ITION OFFICER

¶34

To, '1. The XV Speciar Magistrate Court, Secunderabad.

¶35

The Station Hor ;e Officer, Tukaram Gate P.S., Gopalapuram Division, North Zone, Ser underabad.

¶36

Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad,

¶37

One CC to Sri \ . V, Satish, Advocate [OPUC]

¶38

Two CD Copies

¶39

One Spare Cop I Pcsd obr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 161021:'.022

. .-j" '
,. c^\ <br>i ,: 141".."?, 2l?7_
',i\ .:?
'' ,.. .

¶44

ORDER

¶45

CRL.P.No.7259 of 2013

¶46

DISMISSING IHE CRIMINAL PETITION"

¶47

t&,, 1e'+ tv/4.

M.Mohan Rao, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Mohan Rao, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

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

P.Saibaba , Raju, Nizamabad., Vs State of Ap. Rep. Pp and Anr.

Sajida Begum, Karimnagar Dt., Vs State, Thrps. Jagtial Town and Anr, Rep Pp.

Sanda Sreeramulu Vs Sanda Somakka and Anothers

Syed Sharif, Vs Smt. Sajida Begum

K.Jyothi Vs K.Maduleti and Another

The State of a.P., Vs Kotla Jagadesh