Telangana High Court
CRLP/16518/2014 of Sushant Lahoti, Vs The State of Telangana, on 31 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.16518 of 2014 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.304 of 2014 of Neredmet Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARYCRIMINAL PETITION No.16518 of 2014
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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:
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash theproceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.304 of 2014 ofNeredmet Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences underSections 323 and 354 IPC.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned PublicProsecutor.
A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is soleaccused and second respondent is de facto complainant in CrimeNo.304 of 2014. As per the allegations made in the complaint, thepetitioner made an attempt to outrage the modesty of secondrespondent.It is further alleged that the petitioner beat the secondrespondent.The petitioner is none other than the son-in-law of thesecond respondent.It seems that the parties are at loggerheads dueto obvious reasons.
The court has to take into consideration the allegations made inthe complaint only while deciding the petition under Section 482Cr.P.C. The court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry toascertain reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in thecomplaint at the initial stage of investigation. The material placed onrecord is prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter in order toascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in thecomplaint.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and[1]also the principle enunciated in R.P.Kapoor v State of Punjaband [2]State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, I am of the considered view thatthis is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the concernedPolice may be directed not to arrest the petitioner till completion ofinvestigation. In view of the principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex[3]Court in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar, the Station House Officer,Neredmet P.S., is hereby directed to follow the procedurecontemplated under Section 41A Cr.P.C., in Crime No.304 of 2014.
With the above direction, the criminal petition is dismissed.Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the criminal petition, shallstand closed.
_________________________
T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J
December 31, 2014.YS
[2]AIR 1992 SC 604AIR 1992 SC 604
[3]2014 (8) SCALE 250