Dismissed

Smt. Sasanam Rushiveni v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC26 Apr 2023CRLP/7951/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed the quash petition. The Court held that the case depends on circumstantial evidence which requires trial and cross-examination to determine complicity. Proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. It was directed for the trial court to conclude findings based on trial evidence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 7951 of 2022 dismissed. Trial court directed to conclude complicity based on evidence adduced during trial.

Smt. Sasanam Rushiveni Vs The State of Telangana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32sl ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7951 0F 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Sasanam Rushiveni, W/o Sasanam Srinivas Rao, Aged 37 years, Orcc. Pvt.Service, R/o H. No. 1 2- 1 4- 1 00, Janatha Nagar, Moosapet, Hydeiabad500018

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court building at Hyderabad through Railway Police Station, Hyderabad GRP-Secunderabad.

¶12

2 Smt.Sudha Upadhyayulu, Wio not known to the petitioner Aged 47 years, Occ.Head Operations My Choices Foundation H.No.6-2-39, Flat No.301, A- Bloek Third Floor, A.C.Guards, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/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 in C.C. No. 23 of 2O22 on the file of ll Metropolitan Magistrate (for Railways) at Secunderabad against the petitioner/Accused in the interest of justice

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶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 in C.C. No. 23 ot 2022 on the file of ll Metropolitan Magistrate (for Railways) at Secunderabad including personal appearance of the petitioner during the pendency of the present Quash Petition in the interest of justice

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C KUMAR Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

¶19

THE I TONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SUITENI)ER

¶20

C IIMINAL PETITION No.7951 OF 2Ot22

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

l'his Crim. nrrl Petition is liled under Sec ior-r^2,32 cl the' Code of Cr-imrrai Proc.:ciure, )973 (for short Cr.t).C,') b-,^Lhc petitioner-/Accu r e rl to quash the proceedings zrfIELnst her in C.C.No.23 ol' 2 )22 on the file ol II MetroF,olitiur Magistr-ate^(for Railrrr avs) nt S^e <:underabad. The offences allclle :l ;rgain st the petitioner ar,*e ur dt:r Sections 379 and 403 of tlre lr-rci;i,Lt-r l)enal Code

¶23

tleard botl sides and perused the record

¶24

1'he petit io re r who was working as an Assistzr n I in pre paid A/C u,aiting tlal irt Hyderabad Railway Station s e s foi,u-td to have committecl theft ol an amount of Rs.20,0O0/ fronr Afiizr Flameem u,ho^ra,as listerl ar vritness No.7 (LW7) in the chzLrge shr:et

¶25

'l-he case ,: " the prosecution is that on 1().1 1 2O2O one girl named Afiy:r [{zr neem u,ho is a minor was foutrr] in Hyderabad Raih,r,ay Station r. ith a bag and immediately the girl 'r'i Ls lranded over at Child Lin,: Hi' p Desk in the railway station. 1'his petitioner^{\ ras} the staff on cltrt. at th<: help desk. The^par('nts ol the^{girl n'ere} inlorme d b,y t}-re H rn-re Guard and after their^arrir tti^{tlLc b:,rg was} checked and it^ql s found that^{thererrn'ere three bttnrll,:s rlf Rs.500/}

¶26

each and were harded over to the girl,s father. Thereafter, u.hen the staff on duty were cleaning the premises, a bundle of Rs.SOO/denomination of Rs.2O,OO0/ fell from rhe banner which was in the room. Suspecting that the amount belonged to the child who was given to her parents, the father of the girl v',as ca.lled who informed that an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs in facr were taken from the house by the girl and only Rs.l,4g,0O0/_ was in the bag of the girl. The remaining amount of Rs. i,02,000/_ u,as missing.

¶27

S During enquiry, the petitioner r,r,as found in possession of Rs'9'370/- which was stated to have been withdrawn from the Bank by the petitioner. After verifying the Bank statement amount was returned. On further enquiry, the child informed that the previous day, this petitioner opened the bag and found the cash and she asked the girl to keep two bundres in her safe custody in a tiffen box and promised to hald over the same to her afterwards, saying that the Police would take away the cash. Though the petitioner denied that she had taken the two bundles of Rs.5OO/- denomination each, her services were terminated for being involved in corrupt practices. Thereafter, the police investigated the case and found that this petitioner had in fact taken the amount from the child and Rs'20'000/- which was found in the office was part of the said cash.

¶28

¶29

Lt'irrrrc,-l C runsel :rppearing for the petrtion:,r !.ould submit that 1ro crrsh r,. rs ,-r:covered fr-om this petitloner ar:i cnlv on ihe basis of thr: si:rlc'rne rt rnade ltv thc u.itnesses, tlte pe ti.iorrer l.etnnot be prosectrtt'r1 Ior tlre offence either under Section^1;';9 cr .f 03 of the Indian Pcr rri Cr d:

¶30

On rhe" rth('r hand learned Additional^rr.LbLc prosecutor submits [iiat t rc involvement of this petitioner ]n ccmmitting the thelt of r:a:;h frr n the child can be decided drrring the course of trial and as sr-r,. it Jrrr ct:edings cannot be quashed.

¶31

¶32

Thr: < ase s one of the circumstantial r'vi<le.rrc,r and lvhen the circumstances ; rt,vieu,ed, prima afcie case is made c,ut. The.girl had taken the .ash from the house and arrived itt rh€ Rai \,ay Station. Subsequently. im .Lmount of Rs.2O,O0O/- u,as frrl:nd in the A/c waiting ha'l .n 1 when questioned the girl,s frrther i,formed that Rs.2,50,00t)/- u ar; taken lty the girl. The girl iater girve a statement that this pr:titio re r had asked the girl to handover tw,r bundles of cash f<rr thr' rea scn that the Police would take awir1, the said cash. The infere.c:e *, rether the petitioner had in fact t:11.:en the amount can onlv be dec dr:d during trial after the vvitnesses ha,,e examined and the ltelition :r is given the opportunity of cror;s examining the u.itnesses

I I

{

g. I do not hnd any^{grounds to quash the proccedings' How-ever'} the learned^{magistrate shall conclude the complicityor othcrwiseof} the petitioner^{on the basis of eviCenceaclducedduring the courseof} trial uninfluenced^{by any of the observations made above The} observations^{made hereinare for the purposeof deciding the case at} the inception^{whenthe partieswere not given a chanceof adducing} evidence.

¶37

Accordingly,^{the Criminal Petition is dismissed'}

¶38

Miscellaleous^{applicationspending, if any, shall stand closed}

¶39

SD/.T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT EGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFIEER

To,

1 . The ll Metropolitan Magistrate at^Secunderabad

¶44

The SHO, RPS, Hyderabad

¶45

One CC to SRl. C KUMAR^Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,^{HighCourt for the Stateof} Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶47

Two CD Copies KKS

I I

HIGH COURI

DATED:2610t'12023

-a'1 -
/) .,:.
t,,,
/
i; I I'rii,, ?I?J
\ ).

¶52

ORDER

¶53

CRLP.No.79!|1 ot²⁰²²

¶54

DISMISSING OF THE CRLP WITHOUT C()STS

¶55

u, oJ

¶56

<br>

Smt. Sasanam Rushiveni v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sasanam Rushiveni 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

Ms. Sarapaka Nagalaxmi Vs The State of Telangana

Kum. Mukkara Srilatha and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

V.Raghavendra Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Bhanuru Nagender Vs The State of Telangana

Kothapally Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

Enishetty Sudarshan Vs The State of Telangana