Disposed

Srinivasa Rao Dongari v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Aug 2024CRLP/2821/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the petition to quash FIR proceedings against the petitioner, who was added as an accused without specific allegations. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and submit documents to prove non-involvement in criminal offenses, ruling out immediate quashing pending trial outcomes.

What did the court decide?

Direction to appear before IO under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and submit documents to prove non-involvement in criminal offenses.

Srinivasa Rao Dongari Vs the State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32ee]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, "^{*THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST} TWO TIIOUSNNO^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEE.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶6

CRIMIN^{AL PETI TION NO:282'lOF 2018}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Srinivasa Rao^{Dongari, S/o' DonganSgidl?l',} t-S*^{40 vears' Occ : Sub-} lnsoector of Police,^{Rlo. rvr"K n"Jiv nvtn'-qhrckenCenter' Thukkuguda (V)'} il:'#;;;r;ir,,ri,^{njns, Reddv District- 50135e}

¶9

--.Petitioner^{/ Accused No'15}

¶10

AND

¶11

The state^{of Telangana.through sHO, ChaiPnyapuriPolicestation'R R'} District. Rep.^{ov its puniic'iliJJetiioiHigl CoJrt of Judicature'Hvderabad} rf iiii"'stliE^{;'i"1,ngun"u'"nJit'"State"ot nndhra Pradesh}

¶12

...ResPondent

¶13

Keetha^{Venkateswarlu'S/o Late Venkata Ramaiah Aqed about 41 years'} Fl/o. H.No.^{3-57l.1 , cnirtJi,nri'g:apriu,Su.Vup"t District' Telangana State}

¶14

...Respondent^{/ Defacto Complainant}

¶15

Petition under^{Section482 of Cr'P C' prayingthat in the circumstances} statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to^{quash the proceedingsin FIR No' 665 of 2017 on the file of the} Chaitanyapuri^{Police Station,R R' District'}

¶16

I.A. NO:1^oF.2018

¶17

Petition^{under Section482 of Cr'P C' prayingthat in the circumstances} statedintheMemorandumo{GroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to stay^{all further proceedings in FIR No 665 of 20'17on the file of the} Chaitanyapuri^{Police Station, Ranga Reddy District including appearance of the} Petitioners,^{pending disposal of Criminal Petition'}

¶18

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024

¶19

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 extend the interim order dated 2910412024 made in l.A. No. 1 of 2024 in Crl.P. No. 2821 of 20'18, till the disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ch Venkat Raman, Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms S Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No. 2.

¶21

The Court made the following Order :

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL c AL ONNo.2821 0F 20La

¶23

OR D ER:

¶24

This Criminal petition is filed under Sectio n 4g2 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (for short ,Cr.p.C.) by the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No. 15, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him in Crime No.66S of 2OI7 on the file of Chaitanyapuri police Station, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sectio ns 420, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A I 5 and Ms. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant public prosecutor for respondent No.1 _ State. perused the record.

¶26

The brief facts of the case are that the d.e_facto complainant lodged a complaint dated i3. ll.2OlZ stating that A1 and A2 lured the de_facto complainart and ottrers in the name of providing jobs arrd business opportunities by collecting huge amount in Crores of rupees by offering high rate of interest. However, they did not provide aly

¶27

¶28

EW,J CrLP-No.2821 oJ 2OlA

¶29

employment and also stopped payment of interest. When the complairrant and others approached them for repayment of their amount, they threatened the complainant ald others with dire consequences and absconded, thereby, the accused have cheated rhe de-facto arrd others. Basing on the complaint of the de-facto complainant a case was registered against the accused in Crime No.665 of 2Ol7 on the file of Chaitanyapuri Police Station. During the course of investigation, the name of the petitioner is also figured as accused No. 15 in the remand application. Aggrieved by the sarne the petitioner/Al5 has filed the present Crimina_l Petition seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him in Cr.No.665 of 2017.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner appea_ring online vehemently contended that there is no whisper about involvement of the petitioner in the complaint made by the de-facto complainant, however, wittrout verifying the facts, the respondent-police mechanically arrayed the petitioner as Accused No.15 in the remand application, basing on the

¶31

EW,.I CrLP-No.2421 oJ 2018

¶32

-7

¶33

¶34

alleged confession statement made by accused No.l. He further contended that the petitioner is al employee of Police Department and was suspended while working as Sub-lnspector of Police and due to political ald ulterior motive, a false case has been registered against the petitioner to harass him. Hence, he prays to a-llow the Criminal Petition.

¶35

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehementiy opposed the Criminal Petition and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that unless and until a full-fledged trial is conducted, the truth and involvement ol the petitioner in the alleged offence will not come out. He, therefore, prays to dismiss the Crimina-l Petition.

¶36

Without going into the merits of the case, since the punishment prescribed for the offence alleged against the petitioner is less than seven (07) years, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner/ accused to appea-r before the Investigating Oflicer on or before O5.O9.2O24 between 02:00 p.m. and 04:00 p.m. and in turn the

¶37

EW,.t CrLP.No.2a21 of 20la

¶38

Investigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and also the guidelines formulated by the Honble Supreme Court in Arttesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and anothert scr:upulouslv. However, the petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Oflicer as and when required by furnishing information and documents as sought by him in concluding the investigation. The petitioner/accused No. 15 shall file all the relevant documents in order to prove that the alieged transaction does not come under the crimina,l offences and on Iiling such documents, the Investigating Officer shall consider the same before filing appropriate report before the Magistrate concerned.

¶39

7 . Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall

¶40

also stand closed.

¶41

sar-^{e c!;,sc.frBHE3lsH"of;} 'c:-otY) t^{scc L13}

¶42

//TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶43

To,

¶44

The^{Xl Metropolitan Magistrate at LB Nagar' Rachakonda} 2.^{The station ,,*."on,*r, chaitanyapuripS, Rachakonda District} Hrsh:ourt^{ror the state or reransana'} t l}3"?"?f#;;;;secutor t; s'i^{cn v"nr'utRaman' AdvocatetoPucl} ,Llk^{- #;} 5. Two^{CD CoPies}

L___

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410812024

1HE Sth
B
\ ( o
:)t tr
oc
05 I'JII/ zut
o
n
*
DtsD
TCH
^

¶50

ORDER

¶51

CRLP.No.2821 of 2018 .

¶52

DISPOSING OF THE CRLP

Srinivasa Rao Dongari v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivasa Rao Dongari 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

Ponagandla Jyothi and 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another

M. Vijaya Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Madireddy Venkata Vijaya Ram Vs The State of Telangana

M.A. Rasheed Jameel Vs The State of Telangana

P.Venkateshwar Rao Vs State of Telangana

Mamindla Ashok Vs The State of Telangana