Telangana High Court
CRLP/2525/2010 of Mortu Jaya Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2525 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner/A1 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 307, 420 and 506 I.P.C. along with others. Insofar as the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is concerned, the allegations are against other accused
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULUCRIMINAL PETITION No.2525 OF 2010
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner/A1 is accused of offences punishableunder Sections 307, 420 and 506 I.P.C. along with others.Insofar as the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is concerned,the allegations are against other accused and not against A1.A1 and the defacto complainant did joint business. There isdispute between them with regard to the said partnershipbusiness for which loan was also obtained from the Bank. It isalleged that when the defacto complainant was asking A1 foraccounts, A1 was postponing the same and that in theabsence of the defacto complainant, A1 took away accountbooks, cheque books, day books, bill books, vouchers etc.,relating to the partnership business and that when the defactocomplainant questioned A1 about it, A1 abused him in filthylanguage and threatened to kill him in case he questionedhim. It is specific allegation of the defacto complainant thatfrom the beginning i.e., from the inception, with dishonestintention of taking away monies belonging to the partnershipbusiness A1 was behaving and in that direction all the bookswere stolen by A1 from the business premises. No doubt, the police referred the case as one of civil nature. Thereupon thede facto complainant filed private complaint before theMagistrate at Sattenapalli. When the allegation against A1 isthat he entertained dishonest intention from the inception ofthe business, it cannot be said at this stage without trialwhether the case is one which is purely of civil nature. Simplybecause the de facto complainant filed civil suit for rendition ofaccounts against A1, the case does not cease to be a criminalcase in the light of the above allegations made by the de factocomplainant in the report and complaint. This is not a fit casefor quashing proceedings pending in the lower Court.
Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_____________________________
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
December 29, 2011MD
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
MD
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2525 OF 2010
December 29, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDRABAD
Dated: 29.12.2011
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALAGOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2525 OF 2010
Between:
Mortu Jaya Prasad
..... PETITIONER
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh and another
....RESPONDENTS
The Court made the following: