Disposed

Singarapu Surendar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Jul 2022CRLP/879/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Telangana HC disposed of criminal petition under S.482 CrPC. Court held that serious factual issues existed regarding the petitioner's licensing and connection to alleged services, necessitating further investigation rather than quashing.

What did the court decide?

Directed police to complete investigation within six months; exempted petitioner from appearing before trial court pending trial.

Singarapu Surendar Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 879 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Singarapu Surendar, S/o Shivakumar, Aged about 30 years, occ catering service, Rl/o H.No.4-33, Pensionpur of Fort, Warangal town and district.

¶8

...PETITIONERYSOLE ACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, Through Station House Officer, ltlamnoor police station, Warangal City and District

¶11

...THE STATE/RESPONDENT

¶12

Ivlr.Chaparthy Kumara Swamy, S/o Late. Komuraiah, Aged about 54 years,Occ. DSP- AR-PTC Rl/o Police Training College, [,4amnoor, Warangal City and district.

¶13

...RESPONDENT No.2/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶14

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 petitioner / sole accused in connection with C.C.No.231 of 2017, on the file of principal Junior Civil Judgecum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Warangal.

¶15

LA. NO: 1OF 2020

¶16

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 all further proceedings against the petitioner / sole accused in connection with C.C.No.23'l of 2017 on the file of principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Warangal during pending disposal of the quash petition.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusing the l.4emorandumof} Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing^{the arguments of sri Srinivas} Kapatia, Advocate for the Petitioner and^{the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf} ofthe Respondent No.1 and none^{appearedforthe Respondent No.2.}

¶18

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶19

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGAIUUN

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.879 of 2020 ORDER:

¶21

Hearcl learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

This Criminal petition is filed seeking quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.231 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil ]udge-cum,Judicial Magishate of First Class at Warangal, registered for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.

¶23

03.^'Ihe case of the police as per the charge sheet is that on15'07.2016 tenders were calred for to maintain the mess for trainee police constables at 4rh Battalion, Mamnoor. The petitioner/accused has also participated in the tenders and the petitioner/accused being the persory who has quoted the less amount, was awarded the tender. It is alleged that the petitioner has enclosed fake experience certificate as if he has got sufficient experience of doing catering services in Kakatiya Medicq!._College. The certificate enclosed by the petitioner

¶24

shows tl'rat M/s.Shivarchan Catering Services has beer-r undertaking the catering work i r.r Kakatiya lt4eclical College at Warar-igal for the last three years. The saicl certificate was given by Dr. Seetha Mahalaxmi, who is the Warden of the said Medical College. According to the Police, the certificate issuecl by Dr. Seetira Mahalaxmi is a fake certificate and the petitioner -^{accused is no way connectedwith the said cateringservices.} The Police have examined Dr. Seetha Mahalaxmi, the Warden of Kakatiya Medical College and recorded her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein she has stated that one Radha Krishna has been rendering catering services in their college for the past three years and about six months back he approached her and requested for issuance of experience certificate in the name of M/s.Shivarchan Catering Services and accordingly, she has issued the certificate to said Radha Krishna. She has stated specifically that she does not know as to who is Surender (petitioner-accused).

¶25

Learnecl counsel for tl-re petitioner has submitted

¶26

that the contentions of the Police is totaliy incorrect and the petitioner is conr-rected with M/s.Shivarchan Catering Services and in order to prove the same the petitioner has filecl certificate issued by Warangal Municipal Corporation, wherein the petitioner \VAS granted Iicense in the name of M/s.Shivarchan Catering Services. Therefore, the question arises is whether the pelitioner-accused is connected with M/s.Shivarchan Catering Services or not.

¶27

Further, the licence filed by the petitioner aiong with the petition is dated 13.07.201,6, that means the petitioner was given license in the name of M/s.Shivarchan Catering Services till the month of July,2017,however, the petitioner has procluced the experience certificate in the month of February, 2015. Therefore, the question arises is whether as on the date of filing of the experience certificate during tender process, the petitioner was having any license in the catering services. Similarly*as observed above, the Warden of Medical College

¶28

has stated that she does not knoi.r, who thc pctitioner is. Tirat means the petitiorrer has nerrer providecl catering services in the medical college.

¶29

Considering the circumstances, since there are number of factual issues, which are to be determined, this Court while considering the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot appreciate entire material on record to conclude as to whether the petitioner has committed offence or not.

¶30

07 . In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Criminal Petition is disposed of with a direcLion to the Police concerned to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months and that the petitioner is exempted from appearing before the trial Court in C.C.No.231 of 201,7 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge - cum -^judicial Magistrate of First Class Warangal, and trial

¶31

¶32

Court is at liberty to clirect the petitioner to bc present as

¶33

required during the course of trial.

¶34

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any,

¶35

shall stand closed.

¶36

ro,

¶37

DEPUsflr'HHiHALA //rRuE copytt

¶38

iiruLff;ps*****c+'*':'::,:'. $o

¶39

HIGH COURT

¶40

DATED: 1810712022

¶41

|1E SrA i6
{< )\t.<br>3 J 82 At]I 20tZ

¶42

ORDER

¶43

CRL.P.No.879 of 2020

¶44

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION

Singarapu Surendar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Singarapu Surendar 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

A.C.Reddy, Mahaboobnagar Dist. Vs State of Ts., Rep. by P.P. and Another

Avala Pradeep Kumar and 2 Others Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

E.K.Girish Singh and 2 Others Vs The state of Telangana and another

M.Chandra Sekhar Vs The State of Telangana and another

Md.Munawar Ali and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Tg., Rep. by P.P. and Another

Poleni Vishnuvardhan Rao Vs The State of Telangana