Remanded

Gundarapu Sneha Latha v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jul 2024CRLP/7472/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC sought to quash proceedings for cheating and cyber offences. The High Court refused to quash the FIR but directed the petitioners to appear for arrest under Section 41-A CrPC to obtain Section 41-A notice.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to appear before I.O. before 18.07.2024 for issuance of Section 41-A CrPC notice.

Gundarapu Sneha Latha Vs State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:7472 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

1- Gundarapu Sneha Latha, Wo G Rajaguru Aged about 40 Years, Occupation. Business Ro Flat No 305, Tulip Rawla Residency, I/ansurabad, SaroorNagar, Ranga Reddy District. (A-1)

¶9

Dr M Suresh Kumar, S/o M Anandam Aged about 63 years, Occupation. Doctor R/o 6-6-325/1A, 6th Lane, Soumya Hospital, Sainagar, Karimnagar505001 (A-2)

¶10

Dr t/ Praveen Kumar, S/o Dr lVl Suresh Kumar Aged 38 Years, Occupation .Doctor R/o 6-6-325/'1A, 6th Lane, Soumya Hospital, Sainagar, Karimnagar505001 (A-3)

¶11

Dr ASI Sravanthi, Wo Dr Nl Praveen Kumar Aged 34 Years, Occupatin .Doctor, R/o 6-6-325/1A, 6th Lane, Soumya Hospital, Sainagar, Karimnagars05001 (A-4)

¶12

.. Petitioner/Acc used 1-4.

¶13

AND

¶14

'1 . State of Telangana, Through . Station House Officer Vanasthalipuram Police Station Ranga Reddy District , Telangana represented by the Pubic Prosecutor of High Court, at Hyderabad,

¶15

Varakantham Karthik Reddy, S/o V Damodar Reddy Aged 39 Years, Occupation Business, R/o H No 4-12-297 ,Jagadamba Colony, High Court colony, Hayath Nagar, Ranga Reddy Diskict.

¶16

...Respondents/Defacto Complainant

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the^High Court^{may be} pleased to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/ Accused 1 to 4 in FIR No 5O0 ot 2024 of Vanasthalipuram Police Station Dated^61512024 for the^offenceU/s 42O, 417,RNU 34 IPC , 66C and 66D of lT Act 2000-2008.

¶18

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the lt4emorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be} pleased to order for stay of all further^proceedings against^{th€r Petitioner/Accusedl-} 4 in FIR No 500 of 2024 o'f Vanasthalipuram^{Police Station Dated 61512024 for the} offence Uls 420,417,RNU 34 IPC , 66C and 66D^{of lT Act 2000-2008 including} their appearance and^pass

¶20

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2024

¶21

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in^{the circumstances} stated in the Iiitemorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition,the High Court may be} pleased to order Respondent Police for issuance of 41-A CrPC^{Noticeas per} Arnesh Kumar^judgment by Honourable Supreme^{Court pencing all further} proceedings against the Petitioner/Accusedl-4 in FIR Nlo 500 of 2024^of Vanasthalipuram Police Station Dated 615120242024^for tre^{offence Uls 42O,} 417,RlW 34 IPC , 66C and 66D of lT Act 2000-2008 and^pass,

¶22

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^perusing the l/emorandum^of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri^{D Suresh} Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D. Aru4 Kumar, Arjditional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and^{.RespondentNo.2} is^not appeared either in Person or by Advocate.

¶23

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶24

I I

¶25

I I

¶26

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT.JUSTICE K. SUJANA}

¶27

CRJMINAL PETI^{TION No.7472 of 20.24}

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Criminal Petition is^{hled under Section 482 of tlre} Code of Criminal Procedure,^{1973 (for short'Cr'P'C'')by the} petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to^{4 seeking to quash the proceedings} against them in Crime^{No.5O0 of2024 on the hle of} Vanasthalipuram Police^{Station,registeredfor the alleged} offences punishable^{under Sections 420, 417, tead with 34 of} Indian Penal Code and^{Sections66-C, 66-D of IT Act 2OOO-} 2008..

¶30

Heard Sri D.Suresh^{Kumar, learned counsel for the} petitioners and Sri D.Arun^{Kumar, learnedAdditionalPublic} Prosecutor for respondent^No.2 -^State.

¶31

Without going into^{the meritsof the case, since the} punishment prescribed for^{the offencesalleged against the} petitioners is less than^{seven (07) years,this Court deems it} appropriate to^{direct the petitioners to appear before the} Investigating Ofhcer^{on or before 18.07} '2024^{between 11:0O a'm'} and O5:OO^{p.m. and in turn, the Investigating Officer is directed} to follow the^{procedure laid downunder Section41-A Cr'P'C'}

¶32

¶33

arld also the guidelines formulated by the Hon'b1e Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar a. State of Biharr scrupulously. However, the petitioners shall sul;mit their defense and co-operate u.ith the Investigating Officer as, and when required by furnishing information and produce a_11 relevant documents/material required for the purpose ol the investigation and the Investigating Officer shall consider the same before filing appropriate report before the learned Magistrate: concerned.

¶34