The High Court of Andhra Pradesh quash
Criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 12037 of 2021 against the petitioners accused in crime No. 490 of 2021 were quashed and miscellaneous applications stood closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*l
[32sl ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIM INAL PETITION NO: 10104 OF 2021
Between:
...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No. I & 2
AND
...RESPONDENT/COMPLA!NANTS
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 call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C No 12037 of 2O2'l on the file of the lll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad in crime No. 49O of 2021 , on the file of SHO, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District registered against the Petitioners/Accused No 1 and 2.
l.A. NO: 1OF 2021
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 grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No. 12037 ot 2021 on the file of the lll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad in crime No. 490 of 2021, on the file of SHO, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District including the appearance of the petitioners till the disposal of the Main Quash Petition in the interest of thejustice.
This Petition tc,ming on for hearing, upon pertsing the lr,lemorandum of Grounds of Crimi al Petition and upon hearing the a.gurnents of Smt. GAYATHRI, Advocz e for the Petitioners and the Addi:ional prrblir; prosecutor on behalf of the Respo d,:nt No. 1 and of none appeared for tht: Rescondent No. 2
The Court made th€ following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRI l NAL PETITION No.1O104 OF 2O2L
OR DER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4g2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short'Cr.p.C.) by the petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2 to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.12037 of 2021pending on the file of learned III Mditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The offence alleged against them is punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPCJ.
2
Investigating It'icer found that the offences purri:;hatlle under Sections 406 nd 420 of IPC are not made out. lowever, prima facie, it was, slablished that offence of crimirral intir.lidation was made out as s cn charge sheet was filed against the or,,titioners, for the offence pu ri:;hable under Section 506 of IX;.
3
0 I
(supra), the learned Magistrate ought not to have entertained the application filed by the 2d respondent - de facto complainant under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C.
sheet, no such orders were obtained by the Investigating Officer.
z Criminal Appeal N o.252 OF 2022lAtising out ofSLP (Crl.) No. 2 tt3 of 202 tl
4
Chief Metropoi tan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby c;uasrhed.
Miscellar eous applications pending, if any, shal stanC closed.
Sd/- MOHO. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
To,
sEc_t-toN oFF|CER
Njb"/
HIGH COUR''
DATED:2710"12023
-.- 11
)r-
!
'r\t $
I<br>
ORDER
CRLP.No.10" 04 of 2O21
ALLOWING THE ]RLP
vg
1>
-J
3 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings under Section 506 IPC should be quashed due to non-compliance with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directions and procedural lapses regarding Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for failure to file a necessary affidavit prior to filing a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Whether the charge sheet filed for a non-cognizable offence complied with Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. regulations regarding magistrate permission.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Piyankar SrivastavaFollowed¶29
Piyankar Srivastava and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
Innu VenkatahFollowed¶34
Innu Venkatah vs State of Karnataka
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Manne Shilpa
Smt. Gaddam Mahalakshmi
The State of Telangana
Smt. A. Eshwari
K. Surender
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
