Allowed

Kedala Pavan Kumar, Warangal and Another v. Public Prosecutor, Karimnagar and Another

Telangana HC18 Feb 2025CRLP/11860/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Bench of this Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR proceedings. The petitioners contended the private complaint was invalid because the complainant failed to file the mandatory affidavit under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held the proceedings were an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings against the petitioners in FIR No. 447 of 2015 by Karimnagar I-Town Police Station are quashed.

Kedala Pavan Kumar, Warangal and Another Vs Public… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

[³³⁸⁵¹

l r I i l , I l i

I l I I

lr i

lr I I I ! I i t, t I I I I

¶6

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶7

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE,K. SUJANA

¶10

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11860 0F 2015

¶11

Between:

¶12

1- KEDALA PAVAN KUMAR, WARANGAL AND ANOTHER, S/o. Late Prabhakar, ageed 38 years, Occ Businesi, Rio. H.No. 11-26-123t3, Kothawada, Warrangal.

¶13

2 Akula^Sadanandam,. S/o. Veeraswamy, ag_eed about 45 years, Occ Doctor, C/o. Sunrise Hospital Old Employemi:nt btfice^-Or-' B Rl Ambe;[;r-R;;;, Karimnagar.

¶14

..,PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 & 2

¶15

AND

¶16

i .r:.-1. ,.,)_^,: :^, . r,^{- ...} - r.. .. ..-

¶17

I PUPLIC PROSECUTOR. KARTMNAGAR AND ANOTHER. throuoh p S Ren Dy Publtc Prosecutor. 1 Town, Karimnagar High Court of Judicatu"re at Hyderabad.

¶18

, 9l:!V Ranga,Swamy,,_S/o. Odaiah, Occ Busrness, R/o. H.No. 8-6_111t6, Kothtrampur locality. Karimnagar

¶19

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶20

Petition under section 482 af cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal peiition, the High court may be pleased to Quash the F.l.R.No. 4471201s of Karimnagar r rown porice station, pending on the file of Additionar Judicial First crass Magistrate, at Karimnagar, to meet the ends of jusice by declaring the said proceedrngi are initiated by ab-use of process of law in the interest of justice.

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(C RLPMP. NO: 118 49 0F 2015)

¶22

Petition under section 482 of cr-p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal peiition, the High court may be pleased stay of all further proceeding in F l.R. No. 447t201i on the file of Karimnagar I Town Police station, pending on the file of Additional Judicial First class Magistrate, at Karimnagar, pending disposal of the above criminal petition.

¶23

This Petition cotrtng ' for hearing, upon perusing the MernoranCu'n of Grounds of Criminal Pet'tio^I -C upon hearing the arguments of Sri Che<uri Yadagiri. Advocate for the^r e i i)ner and the Public Prosecutor^{( f} G)^c n behalf^{of the} Respondent No¹ ,ld of Sri Ponnam^{t/aheshBatru,qrjrrc cate for the} Respondent No.2

¶24

The Court made the f^{, lowing: ORDER}

¶25

I i

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶28

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1186O of 2O15

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

The present Criminal Petition is hled by the petitioners/A. 1 and A.2 to quash the proceedings against them in FIR.No.447 of 2O 1 5 of Karimnagar I-Town Police Station, Karimnagar. The offences alleged against the petitioners are for the offences under Sections 42O, 465, 12O-B rlw.34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'rPC).

¶31

The facts of the case are that on 01- 11.2015, the police received a private compiaint from the 2.,1 respondent which was referred by the Court against the petitioners stating that he is one of the partners of Devishetty Pharmacy Medical shop along with Devishetty Srikanth Rao who is also Chairman of Dcvishetty Hospital. It is stated t}rat A.2 is a Doctor and onc of the partners of Sunrise Hospital, Karimnagar ald he used to come to the said hospital to meet Lw. 1 and developed acquaintance. A.2 also used to run chits worth Rs. 1 lakh to Rs.5 lakhs, which was encouraged by Lw. 1 to^join in the chit. Accordingly, the complainant joined in

¶32

¶33

ir l ll lr

¶34

the chit rvo rt ' Rs.5 lakhs payable @ Rs.2O,OOO/- per rno'r1h for 25 months aerl i.e paid instalments regularly and lift,'d t're chit in 15th month l r d became successful bidder for an alni)u rt o1' Rs.3 Lakhs. T r:.Lr vhile lifting the chit amount, A.2 colk:ctet. a signed blank prc n, Ie ard blank cheque as a collateral scc urit1. and instead ol --,i r ding over the chit amount to the comlrla nant, A.2 handcd orc r rc same to Lw. 1 ald after receiving thc lrizc rnoney, Lrv. 1 girvc irs . ,:rance to lhe complainant that it rs his ch it amount and he u,i[l i iu^{st thc earlier paid anount, and [o cor til} 'ue^{to pay} the fu t,-rre lrr alments, but faiied to do so. As sr-rch,lispr,rtcs arose betwce n I.r'^.. and complainant, thereby handecl ov(]r the medical shop to l-r r, 1 ind became defaulter of chit amount ol ls.80,OO0/-. Insteac' r,f crnanding the amount from Lw. 1, A. 2 started demandin q t r amount from complainalt and A.2 in c,rilr rsion with A.1 crt:rt:,1 ake documents in the name oi corr pl rinant as borrorver Li irrging his signature. A civil srrit rviLs also hled against t I- c ,,mplainant in O.S.No.1 17 of 2015 or: -1'r t file of I- Additional -t' .,.rict Judge, Warangal. As such, reque)jt td tl're poiice to takc irc, i ll lgainst the petitioners.

t I

I ,

Heard Sri Chekuri Yadagiri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ponnam Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for the 2"d respondent and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent.

¶39

4- The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that while lrling complaint under Section 2OO Cr.P.C, the mandatory provisions are not followed and no aifidavit is ltled by the complainant. Therefore, the complaint iLself is not maintainable and the proceedings against the petitioners have to be quashed. in support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the^judgment

¶40

in T.Kamalakar and others Vs State of Telangana and anotherl,

¶41

rvherein in similar circumstances, the Court held as under :

¶42

"12. Hence, considering the above^judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivatsava's case (supra) and in Babu Venkatesh's case (supra) and as the complainant failed to file his afhdavit in support of the complaint and has also failed to disclose about the compliance of Section 154 (1) & (3) and the order of Magistrate also would not disclose any application of mind before referring the matter to the police and the civil suit was also decreed against the defendant, considering the fact that he admitted in his cross-examination about his hand-writing on Ex.A,1 ald his counter signature on the reverse of rt, it is considered fit to quash the proceedings against the petitioners, as the continuation of proceedings is only an abuse of process of law.'

¶43

1 2022 (2\ ALD (Crl) 59a (TS)

Ir. 'i,r,'^' the Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs, State of Uttar Prad,es h and others² , as affidavit is not liir:d ernd the mandatorv pr r';isions are not followed, the proceedingls a1;ainst the petitioners z r, .iable to be quashed.

¶48

Lerrr,r :r r:ounsel for the 2nd respondent woulc ,t1s o submit that no affidzi ii is hled while filing the complaint.

¶49

C':nsi,lr^- ng the submissions made by both th( t:or.nsel ald in vie.,r, rl thr' bservalions made in Para 12 of thc abor,: judgment, the pror:,:cl.:., against the petitioners in FIR.No.447 o 2Oi5 of Karimn:rgar I r,.r,n Police Station, are liable to be quaslLect.

¶50

Ar:r:o rli r,:h., the Criminal petition is allor,l'ed rlrar,hing the pror:eedings lainst the^petitioners in^FIR.No.447 rf 2015 of Karimn:rqar Ibrvn Policc Stalion, Karimnagar. Itlisc,tllaneous

¶51

applications. any pending, shall stand closed. a f) l'.,( 0r', SDI. I{OHD. ISMAIL 2- o^j''-' ,/)' -fASSISTI\NI REGISTRAR

¶52

//TRUE COPYII

¶53

htq[..SECl'ION OFFICER

¶54

To,

¶55