Dismissed

Manapuram General Finance and Leasing Limited, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Aug 2023CRLP/6581/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of the criminal petition filed to quash an FIR and stay further proceedings. The Court held that no illegality existed in the notice issued; thus, quashing proceedings would not arise, and the petition was dismissed on abstract grounds.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition is disposed of; no relief granted to quash FIR or stay proceedings.

Manapuram General Finance and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I^s2s4 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6581 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Manapuram General Finance and Leasing Limited, (Yousufguda Branch) Office at, Building No 8-3-22415, 1st floor, Beside Value Mart Super Market, Yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500 038 Represented by its Branch [/anager, Mr. Mr.Thirupathi Lakavath

¶10

l/anapuram General Finance and Leasing Limited (Vijayanagar Colony Branch), Office at H No 2-22-9311, 1st floor, Above Razi clinic, Near Huda Park, Pipeline road, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad- 500 016 Represented by its Branch Manager, Mr. Mr.Yogeshwar Dhori

¶11

...PETITIONERS/PROPOSED ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyd

¶14

Saride Surya Prabha, W/o Paleshwar Rao, Age 46 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o, House No 8-3-678146, Ganapathi Complex, Pragati Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶15

Saride N. Nandini Lakshmi Kantham, D/o, Saride Surya Prabha. Aged about 19 years, Occ. Private, F|/o. House No 8-3-678/46, Ganapathi Complex, Pragati Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶16

R. Sai Kumar, S/o, Not Known to Petitioner, Aged about 18 years, Occ. Private, Rl/o, 3-14, Mustyala, Mustilal Sundilla, Karimnagar, TS - 505209.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/DE.FACTO COMPLAINANT/ACCUSED NO.1 &2

¶18

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 in FIR No. 378 of 2023 dated 20.06.2023 on the file of the Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad City, Telangana and quash the same.

¶19

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2023

¶20

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

¶21

pleased to grant i stay of all further proceedings inclucing tlre arrest of the Petitioners in relation to FIR No. 378 of 2023 dated ir0.06.:1023 rn the file of the Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad City, Telangerna penrjingr disposal of the present Criminal Pe tition.

¶22

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon pe.using the Vemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing thr: argurrents of Sri M SAI CHANDRA HAAS , Advocate for the Petitioner and S GANI:SH , Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and Nonr: alpeared for the Respondent NO.2 8 3.

¶23

The Court made th,r following: ORDER

¶24

')/

¶25

¶26

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6581 OF 2023 ORDER:

¶28

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C. J by the petitioners/ proposed accused to call for the records in FIR No.378 of 2023 dated 20.06.2023 on the flle of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, Telangana and quash the proceedings registered for the offences under Sections 406,42O, 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. I - State. Perused the record.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that accused No. I and de-facto complainant has availed loan from the petitioners by pledging the gold and the gold is in the custody of the petitioners. During the course of investigation, the Police have issued notice to the petitioners under Section gl / L6O Cr.P.C, dated 22.Cl6.2023, stating that the pledged gold is a stolen gold and directed the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel further contended that the police are harassing the petitioners and trying to seize the gold ornaments without clearing the loan amount availed by

¶31

¶32

!--I

¶33

accused No. 1. Therefore, the petitioners ar( con:rtrained to file the criminal petition and prayecl to issue notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

¶34

Learnr:d Assistant Public Prosecutor conten<1ed that petitioners .rre not arraycd as accused i;r FIFI No.378 and therefore, th e Question of issuance of notice unde : Ilecr,ion 4 1 -A Cr.P.C woukl not arise at all and prayed to drsmis:; the petition.

¶35

In vie.v of the above submissions, this Court finds no illegality in the notice issued by the Sub-lnspe,:tor r>f Pblice, Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, Telanganzr, under Section 91/ 160 Cr.P.C, and if at all the gold crnarrLents are necessary frr the investigation, the Investigatint:^(lflicer is at libert5r inves -igate the samc by following the due Jrroces;s of law. Therefore, t re question of quashing the 1;rocer:drngr; in FIR No.378 of 2C23 would not arise.

¶36

With the said obscrvation, the CliminzLl Petition is disposed of.

¶37

Pendir g miscellaneous applications, if an5', sh:rll stand

¶38

.t-

¶39

closed.

¶40

Srl/-G.SIREESHA ASS STAIIT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ( SiECTION OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42

¶43

The XVll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampal y, Hy,Jerabad

¶44

2 The Station Hou5g 961..r, Jubliee Hills Police Sta:ion, Hycerabad.

¶45

3 Two CCs to th ) PUBLTC PROSECUTOR , High court fc r the ljtate of Telangana at t{yderabad [OUT]

¶46

4 One CC to SF l. M SAI CHANDRA HAAS Advocate [OPJC] 5 Two CD Copies

¶47

ADK fAq.

HIGH COUR'T

GAC, J

DATED i 04ltt8,l2023

ORDER

CRLP.No.65ll1 of 2023

¶53

^r a 0;.
/.-:.1
t.: (
i:.: J'
. (.)
.6
.(. 1t ttt r$lx
t'* .-,.,- ''
::-.::,'r . -:;,''

¶54

DISPOSING I)F THE CRIMINAL PEI'ITIOI.I

¶55

P/(C.. o Ia \r-r'

Manapuram General Finance and Leasing Limited, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manapuram General Finance and Leasing Limited, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Allu Rama Narsaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Dama Venu Gopal Vs The State of Telangana

Panga Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Govinda Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammad Wahajuddin Vs The State of Telangana

Naini Harshavardhan Reddy Vs Nerasanametla Ravi