Petitioner sought quashing of FIR No.716 of 2020 registered on a Magistrate's reference after respondent No.2's earlier identical complaint was dismissed and his criminal revision was dismissed for non-prosecution. The High Court held continuing proceedings amounted to abuse of process and quashed them against accused No.2.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3303 ]
IN THE HIGH COURTFORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERAdAD
MONDAY, THE FIRSTDAY PFSEPTEMBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTIdEJ SREEN.IVASRAO
CRIM INAL PETITIONN : 860 0F 2021
Between:
D.Viiav Chander Rao, S/o.SrinivasRao Aged about 40 years, Occ Business' nlo.'tf .'ruo.tZ3-UCL. North Avenue,Kompally,Medchal
...Petitioner/AccusedNo.2
AND
...Respondents
Petition under Section482 of cr.P.Q praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandumof Groundsof driminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased toquashthe proceedings in FlR.No. 716 of 2O2O on the file of PS Pet Basheerabad, CyberabadDistrict.
l.A. NO: 1OF 2021
Petition under Section482 of cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandumof Groundsof $riminalPetition,the High Court may OejteaseO to stayall further proceedingsini FlR.No .716 of 2020 on the file of PS Pet Basheerabad,Cyberabad District
l.A. NO: 2OF 2021
Between:
The State of Telangana,Representedby the Public Prosecutor of High court at Hyderabad
...Petitioner/Respondent
AND
{ .''ta*'V=V
/
...RespondenUAccused
...RespondenUComPlainant
(R2 is not necessary party)
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.Cpraying that inthe circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of CriminalPetition,the High Courtmay be pleased to vacate the staygranted in CrlP No 86012021on the file of Hon'ble High Court dtd 151212021.
This Petition coming on for hearing, uponperusing the Memorandumof Grounds of Crimrnal Petition and upon hearingthe argumentsof Sri N Krishna Sumanth, Advocate for the Petitionerand Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the RespondentNo.1 andnone appeared for the Respondent No.2,
The Court made the following: ORDER
'*
THE HONOURABLE SRr JUqTTCE J. SREENMS RAO CRIMINAL PETIT IO No.86O of2O2L
ORDER:
This Crirninal Petition has been filed under Section 4g2 of the Code of Criminal procedure, lg73, by the petitioner/ accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.716 of 2O2O of Pet Basheerabad police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 12Ob, 3a4, 406, 42O pld 506 read with 34 of the Indiar Penal Code, 1a6O (for shqrt, 'the IPC').
--.--e
.-43'
2
verifying the complaint and the docurnents enclosed along with the complaint and after hearing the counsel for respondent No.2, dismissed the complaint on O1.O7.2019 by passing a detailed order with cogent reasons. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.2 filed Crl.R.p.No.19 ol 2Ol9 before the Principal District and Sessions .Iuclge, Salga Reddy. The learned Sessions Judge dismisserl the said criminal revision petition on 24 .06.2C22 lor non-prosccution and the said order has become final. He further subrnitted that during pendency of the crirninal rcvision petition, respondent No.2 filed a private complainr before the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, on 3O.O9.2O2O with the very same allegations suppressing t1_rc fact of the lodging earlier c:ornplaint ald its dismissal on O7.O7.2O19 ald the pendency, of the criminal revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge. However, the learned XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, cybr:rabad at Medchal, referred the cornplaint to the police. Basing on the same, the present Crime No.716 of 2O2O was registered by thc pet Basheerpet Police Station against the petitioner and others. The initiation of the proceedings suppressing the several rnateriar facts constitutes a clear abuse of the process of lar,r,. ald the same is liable to be quashed.
.
0
t I
I I
4
,. ^r.j j
the offencesunderSections12Ob, 384,406,42Oar'd 5O6 read with 34 of th<:IPC.
7 . On a perusal of theprt:sentcomplainL zrntl the earlier order passcdby the I Atlditional Judicial FirstClass Magistrate inC.F.No.1533 of2O19 datecl Ol'O7'2O19' it revea-ls thatrespondent No.2 has made the verysarrle allegations ngainstthe petitioncr' Hence, thrs Court is of thc considcred view tlratcontintr:rtion of proceedings againstthe petitioner in thepresent Crime No'716 of 2O2O arnounts to a clear abusc ofthe Processof law'
a. For the foregoing dis<:ussion,this Court is ofthe considered opinionthat itis a fitcase to in voke Section 482 Cr.P.C- to qr-rash the proceedings agannstthe petitioner/ accused No.2.
g. In the resr.rlt, theCriminal Petition isallowed' The proceedings againstthe petitioner/accused No 2 regrstered for the offences underSections 12Ob' 384, 406, 42O and 5O6 read with 34 of t.heIPC in F.I.R.No.716 ol 2O2O of Pet Basheerabad Police Station,Cyberabad, are hereby qr'rashed
Misccllaneous applications,pending ifany, shall stand
closed
Sd/.T. SRIDEVI ASSISTANTREGISTRAR
-N
I/TRUECOPY// SECTIONOFFICER
to',,. -n. XXll Additionar Metropolitan Magistrate, cyberabad atMedchal
ABK,/kam
I I
HIGH COURT
DATED: 0110912025
ORDER
CRLP.No.860 of 2021
'iA7'
i\i
o-/.
-z
oo)
[ 1st'' to"
{',
*
)< ./.'
I r_,.,', ,1 ,../,//
:----
ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION
1 issue framed by the court
Whether proceedings in FIR No.716 of 2020 against accused No.2 should be quashed as abuse of process when an earlier complaint on identical allegations was dismissed and a revision thereon dismissed f
3 provisions across 2 enactments
D. Vijay Chander Rao
The State of Telangana
T. Krishna Rao
J. Sreenivas Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
