Partly allowed

Nimma Karthik v. State Rep SHO

Telangana HC7 Feb 2024CRLP/1307/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a Criminal Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C for anticipatory bail. The court directed the SHO to issue notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C in compliance with Arnesh Kumar guidelines while permitting the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to SHO to issue notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C to petitioner; petitioner to cooperate with investigation; petition disposed of.

Nimma Karthik Vs State Rep SHO — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

:i'...

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶3

WEDNESDAY,^{THESEVENTH DAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICE G.RADHARANI}

¶6

CRIMINAL^{PETITION NO :1307 0F 2024}

¶7

Between:

¶8

f ,[T'rf.l^li5:?1"r*olr?l''il,\i;',i"::Ji"3;,fl"J:;Il.1;5':f^1";"5# Colony,^Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

State Rep^{SHO,, P.S. Baniarahills' through PP}

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶13

Petition under^{section 438 of cr.P.C praying} .that^{in the circumstances} stated in the^{Memorandu,ol OrlrnJ. of Criminal-Peiition,the HighCourt may.be} pleased to^grant tne^{anticipaioiYoaif i.1 tle^,^9vent of arrestingthe} Petitioner/Accused^{by the p;i[; i;Crime No 28t2o24on the file of P'S'} Banjarahills.

¶14

ThiS Petition^{comingon for hearing,UponperuslngtheMemorandumof} Grounds of^{criminal Petitionand upon hearingthe arguments of sri Katrapati} Satyanarayana,^{Advocate for the Petitionerand the Public Prosecutor (TG) on} behalf of the^ResPondent.

¶15

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶16

;,,Si i !x'

¶17

THE HOl,{OUllAl}LE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1307 of 2024

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

l-his Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - accused under Section 438 ol'^(lode o1- Criurinal Plocedure (lol shon^{"Clr.l'}.(-.")} fbr grant of anticipatoly bail in Crime No.28 of 2024 on the file ol PS Banjara lJilts registcred fbr the olfcnces under Sections 420,504,506 and 509 of IPC

¶21

l [.hc case of thc prosecution in brief was thar on 07.01.2024 at 07:00 PM, the de-- tacto cornplainant lodged a report sLating that the petitioner herein intloduccd hirnself as a director of movie Bhola Shankar and oflered her to act in thc nror ies arrd alicl lrcr .se lcction. he made shooting lor cight (Oli) clal's in a studio arrd aglccd to pay Rs.5.000/- per day and Rs.3,000/- towards travelling chalges, but he was postponing the payment. On 06.01.2024, when the de-facto courplainant went to thc ofllcc of thc petitioner and dcrnanded lbr thc said amount, thc petitioner abused the complair-ranl tn filthy language and also abused his sub-ordinates fbr asking amount for travelling expenses. Basing on thc said rcpoll. thc abovc Clime was registercd

¶22

Ileald Sri K. Satyanarayana, the learned counsel fbr the petitioner accused ar-rd the lcamed Additional Public Prosecutor

¶23

¶24

Dr.GRR, .I.. crlp_130?_2011

¶25

The leamed counsel for the petitione. submitted that the petitioner was working as a casting director for the past 8 years. The petitioner never claimed himself as director of the film. He never cheated the complai,ant. Alter receiving the amount of Rs.40,000/-, as agreed, which was paid, she was only making a claim for the travelling expenses of Rs.24,000/-. The petitioner was ready to deposit the said amount berore the courl and prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶26

The learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that ail the offences alleged against the petitioner were punishabre with less than se'en (07) years imprisonment.

¶27

As such, it is considered fit to give a direction to thc Station l{ouse officer (for short^*sHo") of pS Banjara Hills to give norice to the petitioner under Section 4l -A cr.P.c and to comply the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex court in Arnesh Kumar v. state of Biharr scrupulously. However, the petitioner shall co-operate u,ith the investigating officer by fumishing information and documents as sought by hirn in concluding the investigation.

¶28

7 Accordingly, the Criminal petition is disposed of.

¶29

'(2014) 8 SCC 273

¶30

¶31

Dr.GRR, J crlp_1307 2024

¶32

As a sequel. misce[laneous applications pending in this petition if any

¶33

shalI stand closed

¶34

Sd/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR '^'r.:,. :; ,,^.,*'.. C ,,/ ,.$, V //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The lll Additional^{Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Hyderabad'} 2. The SHO,^{P.S.Banjarahills, Hyderabad'} a. Onu CC to^{Sri. KatripatiSatyanarayana,Advocate [OPUC]} a. two CCs^{to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the stateof Telangana} ,:,:.' tourl 5. Two CD CoPies

¶35

CS'&,-

¶36

-.-" "' ':.. :-tLi:^tr,'

HIGH COURT

{ I 1,:!6r.r. fF,l&x

DATED: 0710212024

ORDER

CRLP.No.1307 of 2024

fHE SI4 14:
(o
e ?
o) f
U 2t ilAB 20A
C)
* o6,SFATc\r.g0 * {+
. .:.
'i:r' ':

¶43

CRIMINAL PETITION !S DISPOSED OFF

¶44

OlLg.rt"*

Nimma Karthik v. State Rep SHO

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nimma Karthik v. State Rep SHO

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

Sarfaraz @ Mohd Yakub Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Sujoy Guha Vs State of Telangana

B. Durga Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Mukkapati Lakshmi Narsaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Irfan Vs The State of Telangana

Neeripelly Manohar @ Manoj Vs The State of Telangana