Disposed

Kanthi Veera Swamy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Nov 2024CRLP/12766/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed to quash proceedings against petitioner for offenses under BNS. High Court inclined to allow petition but directed police to conduct investigation strictly following Section 35(3) of BNSS and Arnesh Kumar guidelines due to bail eligibility, without going into merits. Petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Directing police to conduct investigation strictly following Section 35(3) of BNSS and Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

Kanthi Veera Swamy Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

I i I I I

[^32ss l

I i t I i I I t I i I I ! i I I

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶6

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶9

CRIM INAL PETITION NO: 12766 OF 2024

¶10

Between:

¶11

Kanthi Veera Swamy, S/o. Kanthi Seetharamulu, Age. 44^Years,Rl/o. T. Kothagudem, Pinailaka Mandalam, Dugnineypalle,^{BadhradriKothagudem} District.

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public^Prosecutor at^{High Court} Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶15

2 Allakunta Eswari, D/o. Veerraju, Age. 32^Years, Caste. SC Madiga, Occupation. Labour Residence. Sivalingaupraum, lvlanuguru Mandal, Badhradri Kothagudem District. ...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.,^{prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the High Courtrnay} be pleased to^quash the^proceedings in 338 of^{2024,dated11-10-2024on the file} of the SHO PS Manuguru, Badhradri^{Kothagudem District, againstthe} Petitioner/Accused.

¶17

l.A. NO: 2OF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.,^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition, the High Courtmay} be pleased to stay of all further^{proceedings in} 338^{of 2024, dated 11-10-2O24on} the file of the SHO PS Manuguru, Badhradri^{Kothagudem District.}

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon^{hearing the argumentsofSri} SESHAGIRIRAO YALAMANCHILI, Advocate^{for the Petitioner and the Public} Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf^{of the RespondentNo.1 and} None Appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

,^ THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTTCE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.12766 oF 2024

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Petition is frled seeking to^quashthe proceedings against the^petitioner in Crime^No.338 of^{2024 dated} ll.lo.2024 for the offences under^{Sections 329(4), 296(bl,115(2),} 75, 35I(21 of BNS on the hle of the^{Station House OIIicer, PS} Manuguru, Badhradri Kothagudem District.

¶24

Heard Mr. Seshagiri Rao Yalamanchili,^{learned counsel for} the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao^{Veeramalla, learned} Additional Pubtic Prosecutor appearing for^{respondentNo.1} State.

¶25

The briel facts of the case are that on^LI.LO.2O24 respondent No.2/complainant reported that, on^O3.IO.2024 petitioner/ accusecl criminally trespassed into her house, with^an intent to outrage t-rer modesty,^abused her in filtlty^{language and} threatened her u,ith dire^{consequences. Basing} on^{the said facts} the present crimc is registered.

¶26

Learned counsel for the^petitioner would submit that upon registration of the F-.L(- the respondent-Police are harassing the

¶27

¶28

petitioner without following the^{procedure contemplatedunder} Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.^{He would further submit that if investigated,} the offences alleged^{against the petitioner would not withstand the} scrutiny of law. Therefore,^{he seeks to allow the Criminal Petition'}

¶29

Learned Additional Public^{Prosecutor opposes the same'}

¶30

Having regard to the submissions^{of both the learned counsel} and-upon considering^{the fact that the offences allegedagainst the} petitioner are punishable with^{less thanseven yea-rs of} imprisonment, without^{going into merits of the case, this Courtis} inclined to direct the^{respondent-Policeto conduct investigationby} strictly following the^{procedureas contemplatedunderSection35(3)} of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha^{Sanhita (BNSS)(PreviouslySection} 41 A of Cr.P.C.) and also the^{guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble} Supreme Court of^{India in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and} anotherr scrupulously.^{However, the petitioner shall submit his} defense and co-operate^{with the Investigating Ofliceras and when} required by furnishing information^{and produce allrelevant} documents/material^{requiredfor the purposeof the investigation'} The Investigating Officer shall^{consider the same beforehling} appropriate report before^{the learnedMaSstr ate-cgncerned'}

'(2ol,r)8^scct271

7 Accordingly, the^{Criminal Petitionis disposed of.}

¶36

Miscellaneous Petitions,^{pendingif any, shall stand closed.}

¶37

Sd/- K AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶38

sl: N OFFICER

¶39

¶40

l.TheStationHouseofficer,Manugur.uPoliceStation,BhadradriKothagudem District.

¶41

z. iwd'c-cs to^{the public prosecutor,High court for the stateof Telangana at} Hvderabad^(OUT) 3. ijil;-cd to bnr.^{SesnacrRlRAoYALAMANCHILI, Advocate[oPUCl}

¶42

Two CD CoPies

'*^a.

I il

HIGH COURT

DATED:0411112024

ORDER

CRLP.No.12766 ot²⁰²⁴

i: r
a
0 7 il.? ?m5 .bo
cf,o
tr'
D5;2.1-l Ll
- --=;r'

¶50

CRL.PETITION IS DISPOSED OFF

¶51

\ft4 n"o&

Kanthi Veera Swamy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanthi Veera Swamy 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Gadepaka Sparjan Raj Vs Smt.Gadepaka Madhuri

Mohd. Abbas, Hyd., Vs L.Munnalal, Hyd and Anr, Rep Pp.

Smt. Gadepaka Madhuri Vs The State of Telangana

Vuppu Ponnamma Vs T.Saidulu

Macherla Deendayal @ Veeraswamy Sambaiah Vs Kotagiri Laxmi

S. Suresh Vs The State of Telangana