Dismissed

P.Hanmanth Rao v. the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Telangana HC3 Jan 2024CRLP/7950/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two criminal petitions seeking quashing of proceedings in the same CC number against the petitioners, holding that quashing is premature before evidence is adduced. The court allowed application under Section 205 CrPC before trial court to be shown if there is no specific allegation against the accused.

What did the court decide?

Both criminal petitions were disposed of; petitioners allowed to file application under Section 205 CrPC before trial court if specific allegations are absent.

P.Hanmanth Rao Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32s1 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL P ON NO : 7950 OF 2017 AND¹²⁶⁰⁵ 0F 2018 LT l,F.No.fi:o12" I\T

¶7

Between:

¶8

P.HANMANTH RAO, S/o P. Venkat Rao Aged 60^years Occu^{Retd. Employee} Fl/o Plot No.86/D, Road No.7, Reddy Enclave, Old^{Alwal,Secunderabad,} Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF TELANGANA.,REP.,PP AND ANOTHER,^{rep. by its Public} Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶12

Sri. D. Venkateshwarlu, S/o Gan athi Sharma Aged 60^{years Occu Advocate} Rt/o H.No.6-54, Asifabad, Dist Asifabad

¶13

...RESPON DENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition, the HighCourt may be} pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.B38 of 2016 on the file of Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Gajwel^{as against the petitionerherein A3is} concerned in the interests of^justice

¶15

l.A NO:1O 2017{CRLPMP. NO: 8413 OF 20t7l

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that^{in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition,The High Courtmay} be pleased to stay all further^proceedings including the appearance of^the petitioner herein/A3 is concerned in C.C.No.836/2016 on the file of Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Gajwel^pending disposal of the Criminal^{Petitionin the} interests of^justice and in the circumstances of the^case.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusing the Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing^{the arguments of Sri C HARI} PREETH ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the^{Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of}

¶18

the Respondent^{No. and of Sri V. RAVIKIRAN RAOAdvocate for the Respondent} No. 2.

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION^{NO: 1260s oF 2018}

¶20

Between:

¶21

Dandamraiu^{Prasad Rao} @,^Prasad ,@^{Dandamraju Eshawara PrasadRao,} occ. Retd. Patwari,^{R/o.- H.No. 16-I-8361D1816, 'MadhbvNagar,Saidabad,} Hyderabad.

¶22

...PETTTIONERyACCUSED(S)

¶23

AND

¶24

1 . The State^{of Telangana,Rep.by its Public Prosecutor,High Courtat} Hyderabad.

¶25

D. Venkateswarlu,^{Occ. Advocate, R/o.H.No.6-54, Asifabad Village and} Mandal, Adilabad^District.

¶26

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶27

Petition under Section^{482 of Cr.P.C prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the^{Memorandum of Groundsof Criminal Petition,TheHigh Court may} be pleased to^{quash the proceedingsagainst the petitioner in C.C.No. 836 of 2016} on the file of^{the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajwel, Medak District}

¶28

t.A NO: 1 OF 2018

¶29

Petition under Section⁴⁸² of Cr.P.C^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the^{Memorandum of Groundsof Criminal Petition,The High Court may} be pleased to stay^{all further proceedings including appearanceof the petitioner in} C.C.No. 836 of^{2016on the file of the AdditionalJudicial First ClassMagistrate,} Gajwel, Medak^{District pending disposal of the above petition}

¶30

This Petition coming^{on for} hearing, upon^perusingthe Memorandum^of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri E VENKATA} REDDY, Advocate^{for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG)on behalf of} the Respondent^{No. and of Sri V. RAVI KIRAN RAO Advocatefor the Respondent} No. 2.

¶31

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶32

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICEK.SURENDER}

¶33

CRIMINAL PETI^{TION Nos.79 5O of 2O17 and 126O5 of 2O18} COMMON ORDER:

¶34

Since, these^{Criminal Petitions are filed underSection} 482 of the^{Code ofCriminalProcedure, 1973' bythe} petitioners, who^{are arrayed as accused Nos'3 and 4 to quash} the proceedings^{against them in the very same C'C'No'836 of} 2o16onthefileoftheAddl.JudicialFirstClassMagistrateat Gajwel, they^{are being disposed of by this commonorder' The} offences alleged^{againstthem are punishableunder Sections} 42O,46A, 471,^{472 and 506 r/w 34 of the IndianPenalCode} (for short'the IPC).

¶35

Heard both the^{learned counselfor accused No'3 and} accused No.4,^{learnedAdditional Public Prosecutorfor the} respondent-State^{and perused the record'}

¶36

The case of respondent^{No'2 is that these accused and} five others^{have approachedhim offeringthe property for sale} to an extent^{of Ac.3.2OGts. It was representedthat the land} belongs to^{accused No.2.On the basis of the allegation that all} the accused^{Nos. 1 to 7 were carryingon real estate business}

¶37

)

¶38

i l

¶39

and in the said process, an amount of Rs.5O,4g,0O0/_ was talen from respondent No.2, towards the consideration for the land and thereby cheated, the complaint was filed.

¶40

Since there are several incidents allegefl in the complaint and the statement of the de facto complainant that these petitioners along with others approached him and convinced him to purchase the property, this court is not inclined to quash the proceedings, even before the evidence is adduced by the de facto complainant.

¶41

Learned counsel for accused No.3 would submit that though there is a specilic allegation of taking amounts by accused Nos. l, 2, 4 to 7, however, no such specifrc allegation is leveled against accused No.3. The said defence can be agitated before the trial Court.

¶42

Accordingly, both the Criminal petitions are disposed off. In the event of the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 filing an application under Section 205 of Cr.p.C., to be represented by a counsel, the same shall be considered by the Triat Court, by imposing conditions, without hindrance to the trial.

¶43

¶44

¶45

Miscellaneous^{applications,ifany pending inthis}

¶46

criminal petition, shall^{stand closed'}

¶47

SD/-P. PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶48

//TRUE^COPY// SECTI N OFFICER

¶49

To,

¶50

TheAdditionalJudicialFirstClassMagistrate'Gajwel,MedakDiStriCt 2 il's'Hi; M;lr;,^{Poti"" Station' Medak Distlcl'.} -- 3 .i;"" ;;",#ii^{C iAnr PREETH AdvocatetoP9gl..} ^. 4 il:;; i; ;Hi.^{; vENKATAREDDY'AdvocateIoP.UCI} 5 E.nE & i" Jni.^{v nnvrKIRAN RAo'Advocate[oPUCl.} b Yil &r",#'Rr.^{puaurc piosecuron(TG) Advocate [oUT]} 7 Two CD^CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310112024

CRLP.No.7950 of 2017 & CRLP.No.12605 of 2018

¶57

tu t .: 2l:1
^
t
t;

¶58

CRL PETITION !S DISPOSSED OFF

P.Hanmanth Rao v. the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Hanmanth Rao v. the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.K.R.S.Murthy and 5 Others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Dr.Bandi Shashikala, Karimnagar Dt., Vs Jamal Mohinuddin, Karimnagar and Anr, Rep Pp.

M. Nagesh Vs The State of Telangana

Challapally Bhargav Sai, Vs The State of Telangana

Avg Logistics Private Limited Vs Guntoju Venkata Chary

Emmadi Soma Narsaiah Vs The State of Telangana