Telangana High Court
CRLP/3274/2006 of Moturi Rama Narasimha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2009
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3274 OF 2006 DATE:29.12.2009 Between: Moturi Rama Narasimha Rao …….Petitioner And: The State of A.P through SHO, Chandanagar, Hyderabad and another ……Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL
DATE:29.12.2009
Between:
Moturi Rama Narasimha Rao
And:
…….Petitioner
The State of A.P through SHO, Chandanagar, Hyderabad and another
……Respondents
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:
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure quashing F.I.R in Crime No.170 of 2006 dated 17.05.2006 ofChandanagar Police Station of Cyberabad relating to offences punishableunder Sections 383, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
On the private complaint filed by the 2[nd] respondent against thepetitioner in the Court of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad,the Magistrate referred the same to the police for investigation under Section156(3) Cr.P.C and report. At that stage, the petitioner filed the presentpetition in this Court and obtained interim stay of investigation in so far asoffences punishable under Sections 383 and 506 I.P.C. only, vide orderdated 11.07.2006. It is stated by both the counsel that after investigating thecase, the police filed charge sheet in the lower court for offence punishableunder Section 420 I.P.C only against the petitioner, since there is stay of investigation regarding offences punishable under Sections 383 and 506I.P.C. Now on perusal of the private complaint which is First InformationReport, it is evident that the 2[nd] respondent did not make any allegationsattracting penal provisions under Sections 383 and 506 I.P.C. It is complaintof the 2[nd] respondent/defacto-complainant that the petitioner having obtainedloan of Rs.1,00,000/- from him and executing promissory note in his favour,promised to repay the said amount in one year and in case he failed to do so,he would make the 2[nd] respondent also as one of the partners along with himin his cable net work business and that having not repaid the loan amountand not inducted the 2[nd] respondent as his partner, the petitioner cheated the2[nd] respondent and deceived him in that regard. It is also further alleged thatwhen demanded, the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour ofthe 2[nd] respondent on The Vysya Bank Limited and that the said cheque wasdishonoured by the bank when presented for encashment. Thus, thecomplaint/F.I.R attracted only one offence punishable under Section 420I.P.C and no others. Since the police already filed charge sheet against thepetitioner for offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C, in my opinionnothing survives in the F.I.R for making any further investigation with regardto offences punishable under Sections 383 and 506 I.P.C.
In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing F.I.R in CrimeNo.170 of 2006 of Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad in so far asoffences punishable under Sections 383 and 506 I.P.C are concerned. Therespondents 1 and 2 are at liberty to prosecute the petitioner/accused foroffence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. in the Magistrate Court in CrimeNo.170 of 2006 of Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad.
Date:29.12.2009
___________________________________
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J
Gk.
Gk.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3274 OF 2006
DATE:29.12.2009