Disposed

Machikatla Venkaswamy v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Aug 2024CRLP/3105/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Criminal Petition seeking to quash proceedings for alleged trespass and criminal breach of peace. The court directed the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and *Arnesh Kumar* guidelines before filing a report.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; Petitioners directed to appear before Investigating Officer under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and follow *Arnesh Kumar* guidelines.

Machikatla Venkaswamy Vs State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY^{OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{E.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION^{NO: 3105 OF 2018}

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 . I/achikatla Venkaswamv,^{S/o. Late Kistaiah, Aged about 57 years'R/9' 19;} rig-igg, Lixrinrgrr,^{GddavarikhaniTown, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapali} District

¶9

Manchikatla Satya^{Naryana,S/o. Late Kistaiah' Aged about.50 years,R/o. 19-} - ria_)sg, liiminigar, Godavarikhani Town, Ramagundam l\ilandal, Peddapali District

¶10

...Petitioners / Accused^{1 and 2}

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at} Hyderabad, for the^{State of Telangana& Andhra Pradesh}

¶13

...1'r Respondent

¶14

Bandari Ramadevi,^{W/o. Swamy, Aged about 50 years,Rl/o' H No' 26-2-267''} Gnadhinagar, Godavarikhani,^{Peddapalli District}

¶15

...2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant

¶16

Petition under Section^{482 oI Cr.P.C. prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the [vlemorandum^{of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court maybe} pteased to quash the FIR^{No 5'13/2017 dated o2.12.2017on the file of the} Godavarikhani I Town^{P.S., PeddapalliDistrict.}

¶17

l.A. NO: 1OF 2018

¶18

Petition under section^{482 of ct.P.c.prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court maybe} pleased to stay all further^{proceedings against the petitionersin connectionswith}

¶19

FIR No s13/2017 d rted 02.12.2017 0n the fire of the Godavarikr anr r rown p.S., Peddapalli Distrrct, including the arrest of the petitioners.

¶20

l.A. NO: 2 O F 2019

¶21

Petition undei- Section 482 of Cr.p.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the lr,4emor.ndum of Grounds of criminar petition, the Hillh court may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 12ro3r2o1g passed in rA.No. 1 of 2019 in crl. P No. 3 i 05 of 20 1 B ti, further orders to be passed in the above criminar Petition

¶22

l.A. NO: 10F 2022 in t.A. NO :3O F 2018

¶23

Between:

¶24

The State of Telanqana. Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad

¶25

. ..Petitioner / Respondent

¶26

¶27

I Machikatla Ven<aswamv. S/o. Late Kistaiah, Aged about 5l .rcars, Ryo. 1g_ Laxmin rsar cdoavarirnini i;;, flJ,X;;rldam rvarrdat peddapati

¶28

$?;iffi

¶29

2 Manchikatla Satva Narvana, S/o. Lale Kistaiah, Aged about 50 years, RIo. 19_ B?;f,fl? Laxminasa r, oooavaiiirra rii^-r;;;: il#,s;dam Mar da t, peddapati

¶30

...Respondents / Accused

¶31

3 Bandari Ramadevi, W/o. Swamy, Aged about 50 years, R:/o G na d h i na ga r. Goda va ri k ha n i, p'"ooi pi rii br: Ji;i^r' "'' H llo . 26-2-267 .,

¶32

... Respondent / Complainant

¶33

( R-3 is not necessary party )

¶34

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorancum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High rlourt may be preased to vacate the r;tay in rA No 312018 in crrp No. 3105/2018 rn the fire of Hon'ble High Court dtd O4lO1t2)1g.

¶35

This^petition conting on for hearing, upon perusing the lVentorandum of Grounds of criminar perition and upon hearing the arguments of A,4r siundareshan

¶36

Rep. Sri K S Murthy, Advocate for the Petitioners and lvl s S Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of^[,4 r Hari^{Rep. Sri G L} Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶37

The Court made the following Order :

¶38

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶39

CRIMINAL PETITION No.31 05 0F 2018

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

This Criminal petition under Section 482 of the Oode of Criminal procedure, lg73 (for short 'Cr.P.C.) is hled by the petitioners, rvho are arrayed as accused Nos.l and 2, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.St3 of 2Ol7 on the file of Godavarikhani I Town police Sta.tion, Peddapalli District, registered for the alleged offe nces punishable urder Sections 442, 422, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶42

Heard Mr. Sundareshan, learned cotrnsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/A I and, A2; Ms. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent No. l-State; and Mr. Ftari, learned couns._-l appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.

¶43

EVY,.t C|LP.No.37OS of 20lA

¶44

The brief facts of the case are that on 01.12.2OL7 at 12:30 hours near Durganagar road, Markandeya colony, Godavarikhani, A1 and A2 and others trespassed into the land of the complainant and filled the pits and caused loss to the complainant. Basing on the complaint dated 02.12.2012 lodged by the de-facto complainant, the Station House Officer, Godavarikhani I Town Police Station, peddapalli District, registered a case in Cr.No.513 of 2OlZ for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present Criminal Petition.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the 2.d respondent encroached the land of the mother of the petitioners herein and started construction therein without obtaining any permission. The petitioners herein gave a complaint to the Municipal Commissioner, Ramagundam Municipality, on 3O.lL.2Ol7 to stop the illegal construction. Notices were issued from Ramagundam Municipality in that connection to stop such

¶46

¶47

EVy,J CrI.P. No.tllOS oJ 20la

¶48

)

¶49

¶50

illegal const'uction on O 1. 12.2OlT and 08. 12.2O17 ancl the present case is foisted immediately on the next day of receipt of 1'r notice. Learned counsel for the pelitioners further cont,lnded that there exists a civil dispute tretlveen the parties and criminal prosecution cannot be used as an instrument or weapon to satisfy private vendetta with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners to come to their terms. Henr:e , he prays to allow the Criminal petition.

¶51

On rhe other hand, the learned Assistant public Prosecutor ctntended that respondent No.2_complainant is no more and submitted a copy of death certifica.te and hence, seeks to pass appropriate orders.

¶52

Learned counsel for respondent No.2_complainant concedes to ttre submissions made by the learned Assistant Public Prose<:rrtor.

¶53

Recordirg the submissions made by learned counsel for the respecrive parties, this Court deems it apprcpriate to direct the j)etitioners/Al and ,A2 to appear before the Investigating Cfficer on or before 30.0g.2024 between

¶54

qb/vn

¶55

11:OO a.m. and O5:OO p.m., and on such appearance,^the Investigating Ofhcer is directed to follow the procedure^laid down under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and also the^guidelines formulated by the Honble Supreme Court of^{India in} Anr,esh Kumar o. State of Bihart scrupulously. The petitioners/A 1 and A2 also shall co-operate^{with the} Investigating Officer by furnishing the required^information along with the relevant^documents/ material^forthe purpose of investigation together with^{their defence} statement and the Investigating Officer^{shall considerthe} same before filing appropriate report^{before the learned} Magistrate concerned.

¶56

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is^disposedof.

¶57

Miscellaneous applications, if^{any pending,shall}

¶58

also stand closed.

¶59

Sd/. V. KAVITHA ASSISTAN REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1 , The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First^{Class at Godavarikhani}

¶64

The Station^{House Officer, GDK-I (T) PS' PeddapalliDistrict}

¶65

Two CCs to the Public^{Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana'} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶66

4 One CC to Sri^{K S [Vurthy,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶67

5 One CC to Sri^{G L NarasimhaRao, Advocate [OPUC]} Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910812024

ORDER

CRLP.No.3105 of 2018

t:. \ ]l
(; o
,\
()
:) ''l 1 Nti/ 2024
',
,.,2/
,;/
../

¶74

DISPOSING OF THE CRLP

¶75

c\60fle$ fio

Machikatla Venkaswamy v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Machikatla Venkaswamy v. 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

Sreerama Arvind Volety Vs The State Telangana of and another

Mandapalli Pradeep Kumar Vs B.Bixam

Chodavarapu Nagaraju Vs The State of Telangana

Rajesh Agarwal and 5 Others Vs State of Telangana and Another

Duggishetty Suresh Vs Asoda Alekya

Karamsetty Sindhuri Vs The State of Telangana