Disposed

M/s. Ahmeds Construction Equipments, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Feb 2024CRLP/628/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No. 221 of 2023 alleging offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC. The court declined to decide merits and directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer, who must follow Section 41A Cr.P.C. procedure and Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Petition to appear before IO on or before 20.02.2024 granted; investigation to follow Section 41A Cr.P.C. and Arnesh Kumar guidelines; petition disposed of.

M/s. Ahmeds Construction Equipments, Vs The State of… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION Noi6280F2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Ivl/s. Ahmeds Construction Equipments, Having it office at plot No.1/1, Sy.No. 32, Suleman Nagar, Rajendru Nagar, nungareJ"dy' oirtri"i n"p. by its proprietor, Sameena Begurn w/o. Khaia Moihammeo at*q hnr"a,-dep. oy her husband Khaia ' !9na-1meO^{AteeqAhmed Slo. rr,,tonU. nnmeO,} Aged a-;riqa V"rri, O;;.;;"i#i,, R/o, H.No. 5-6-960/A, Darrusalam, Nampally, Hyd";;;j.

¶7

...Petitioner/Accu sed

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Telangana, Represented by public prosecutor, Through lnsp admin (DD)^potice Station, Hyderabad, High Court at Hyderabad, HVOE*0"J."

¶10

HDB Financial Services ..Ltd., Rep. by" its euinorised Signatory, Mr. A. Nagender S/o. A. Ir/ogili, 4rh Floor, Ootut fowers, pun.lagutta, Hyderabad.

¶11

.,;i i ''i i, i .r+'^r' I

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

Petition under Section ^4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that tn the circumstances stated in rhe Memorandum of Grounds of criminar Feiitiln, the uign court m;y bJ pleased to carr for records rerating to and in connection'witn F.r.R. No. 221 of 2023 on the file of the Xil Adtolrl. Chief Metropotitan Magistrate ,i Nr;prti; !IdSr??30,^{(lnsp Admin (DD)potice station,iyJeiabad.)} and^quash the same against the petitioner.

¶14

l.A. NO: 2 0F 2024

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances slated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds ot Criminal peiition, the Uign Court m;y be pleased to stay of all further proceedings of F.l.R. tto- zzt ot 2o23 on the file of the Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan ,rlagistrate at Nampatty, Hyderabad, (lnsp Admin_(DD)^potice Station, Hyderabad.), igainst *,e p;tiiionei, plnoing iird".i of the Criminal petition_

¶16

^ This _Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon^-hearing ine arguments of Sri tvroHD TSLAMUDDTN ANSART, Advocate for the petitio"ner, sii s GANESH, nsii"lant Respondent Public Prosecutor, No.2 on beharf of the Respondent No.i and None "pp"riua-roi'tn" The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K" SUJANA

¶18

IRIMINAL PETITION No.628 of 2o24

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Criminal Petition is hled under Section 482 of the Code of Crirninal Procedure, 1973 (for short^,Cr.p.C.,) by the petitioner, wro is arrayed as accused, to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.22 I of 2023 on the file of the INSp ADMIN (DD) Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 42O and 120-8 of the Indian Penal Code, ..860.

¶21

Hearl Sri Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prose<:utor for respondent No.1 - State.

¶22

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 deerns it appropriate 1.o direct the petitioner/accused to appear before the Investigzrting Officer on or before 2O.O2.2O24 between O2:00 p.m. ard 04:OO p.m. and inturn the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41A Cr.P.C. anC also the guidelines formulated by the Hon,ble

¶23

¶24

sKs,J CrLP.No.628 oJ 2O24

¶25

¶26

Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar u. State of Biharr scrupulously. However, the petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Ofhcer as and when required by furnishing information ald documents as sought by him in concluding the investigation. The petitioner/accused shall frle all the documents which he ought to file to prove that it do not come under the criminal offences and the Investigating Olficer shall consider the same before hling appropriate report before the Magistrate

¶27

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶28

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

¶29

SD/- T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR |/TRUE COPY// v'^^./,'

¶30

SECTION^OFFICER

¶31

To, 1 . The Xll^{Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrateat Nampally' Hyderabad'} 2. The^{Station House Officer,ln"[ nO.in1dO1_eoticeStation, Hyderabad'} . i;;;c;^{i" PUBLIc pnosicl'rron'Hign bourt for the State of relansana'} Hvderabad.[OUT]

¶32

4 ljl,l #i"^{5nr ilouoIsLAIMUDDIN ANSARI Advocate[oPUC]}

¶33

1. Two^{CD CoPies} SP ^'",-

'^{(zot+)e scczz:}

HIGH COLIRT

DATED:1310212024

ORDER

CRLP.No.628 of 2O24

1 t{E STAI
G. o
e.
q o
,oZ
3 2[ FEB 2U1
l
c/: P rl6C
I

¶40

DISPOSING CRIMINAt. PETITION

¶41

Z l-;/ ,,
,)
6_<br><-/
40r

M/s. Ahmeds Construction Equipments, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Ahmeds Construction Equipments, 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

D. Ramesh Babu Vs L.Narasimha Rao

B. Vikram Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Summayya Vs The State of Telangana

Mahadeva Kameswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Ahmeds Construction Equipments Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Ahmeds Construction Equipment-s Vs The State of Telangana