Disposed

Sri Pradeep Chandra Behara, Hyd and Anr., v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp. and Anr.

Telangana HC15 Nov 2023CRLP/6406/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two criminal petitions seeking quashing of FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the High Court noted the petitioners did not object to the charges. Directing expedited investigation within three months under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and Arnesh Kumar guidelines regarding offences punishable with less than seven years imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to police to conclude investigation under Section 41-A Cr.P.C within three months following Arnesh Kumar guidelines; petitioners to cooperate.

Sri Pradeep Chandra Behara, Hyd and Anr., Vs State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6406 OF 2014 And

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6407 OF 2014 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6406 OF 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 . Sri Pradeep Chandra Behara, Sio. Late Dr.Gopinath Behara, Business, R./o. H.No. 7-50lA, JSN Colony, Street No. I, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

¶9

Smt.Celestine Behara, W/o. Sri Pradeep Chandra Behara, Pvt. Employee, Rl/o. H.No. 7-50lA, JSN Colony, Street No. 8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITTONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

State Of Telangana, rept. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad, through PS.,Cyber Crimes, CCS, DD, Hyderabad.

¶13

R.V.N.Krishna Priya, D/o. Late Sri R.Venugopal Reddy, Fyo. 12-13-308/8, 1gth Street, Tamaka, Secunderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that rn the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, The High Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to proceedings FIR No. 435 ot 2013 dated 23-11-2013 on the file of the PS., Osmania University, Hyderabad for offences u/s. 406 and 420 IPC and quash the same against petitioners.

¶16

LA NO: 2 OF 201,1(CRLPMP. NO: 5917 OF 2014)

¶17

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 in FIR No. 435 of 2013 dated 23-1 1- 2013 on the file of the PS., Osmania University, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above criminal petition.

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6407 OF 2014

¶19

Between:

¶20

Sri Pradeep Chandra Behara, S/o. Late Dr.Gopinath Behara, Business, Rl/O. H.No. 7-50lA, Jsn Colony, Street No. 8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

¶21

2 Smt.Celestine Behara, Wo. Sri Pradeep Chandra Behara,^pvt. Employee, R/o. H.No. 7-50lA, JSN Colony, Street No. 8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

¶22

...PETTT|ONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶23

ANO

¶24

1 State of Telangana, rept. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad, through PS.,Cyber Crimes, CCS, DD, Hyderabad.

¶25

2 R,V.N.Krishna Priya, D/o. Late Sri R.Venugopal Reddy, R/o. 12-13-308/8, 1gth Street, Tarnaka, Secunderabad.

¶26

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶27

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 pertaining to proceedings FlR.No.15212013 on the file of the Cyber Crimes, Central Crime Station Detective Department, Hyderabad for offences u/s 406 and 42O IPC and Sex. 43 RAru 66 (A) of tTA Act, 2008 and quash the same against petitioners

¶28

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2014(CRLPMP . NO: 5918 OF m14)

¶29

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, The High Courl may be pleased stay all further proceedings in FIR No. 15212013 on the fite of Cyber Crimes, Central Crime Station, Detective Department, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above criminal petition.

¶30

These Petitions are coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V Lakshmi Harish, Advocate for the Petitioners in both petitions and Sri Vizarath Ali, Asst Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 in both Petitions and of Sri Yellapragada Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 in both Petitions.

¶31

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:

,,,,

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V.^VENUC.OPAL

¶36

CRIMINAL PETITION No.64O6 and.6407 of 2Ol4

¶37

COMMONORDER:

¶38

These criminal petitions are filed by petitioners/accused No.l and 2 seeking to call for the records pertaining to FIR No.435 of 2O13 dated 23.11.2013 on the hle of police station, Osmania University, Hyderabad for the offences under section 406 and 42O of IPC and FIR No. 152 of 2013 on the file olpolice station, Cyber Crimes, Central Crime Station Detective Department, Hyderabad for the offences under section 4O6 and 42O of IPC and section 43 read with 66(A) of ITA Act, 2OO8 respectively and quash the same against the petitioners

¶39

During the course of proceedings Mr. Hyder Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner representing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that No objection vakalath has been issued to the petitioners long back and this petition is pending from quite long time

¶40

3, This matter has been listed on O2.1L.2O23 and the counsel had sought time without informing that they have issued No objection vakalath to the petitioners and there is no representation on 09.11.2023 by the learned counsel for the

¶41

)

¶42

petitioner. Today when the matter is called he came up with a different version that they have issued No objection vakalath Iong back.

¶43

On the other hand the learned Assistant public prosecutor would submit that this matter is pending since quite long time and the offences against the petitioners are punishable with less thal seven years of imprisonment ald unless and until rnvestigation is allowed to be carried out the respondent_police are not in a position to file a final report before the concerned Court and therefore interference of this Court at this stage is not warranted and hence seeks to dismiss the crimina-l petition.

¶44

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counser for the pedtioner and learned Assistant public prosecutor is of the view that the alleged offences are punishable with less than seven years. In the said circumstarrces, since the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the petitioners is less than seven years, without going into merits of the matter, the respondent_police are directed to conduct and conclude the investigation, by strictly following the procedure as contemplated under Section 4l-A of Cr.p.C. and scrupulously following the guidelines formulated by the Honble Supreme

¶45

¶46

¶47

Court in Arnesh Kuntar u. Strrte of Biharl, as expeditiously^as possible within three (3) months from the date of receipt of order of this Court. It is needless to say that, any deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. The petitioners are also directed to cooperate and assist with the investigation.

¶48