Telangana High Court
CRLP/14125/2015 of SANDEEP MUTHINENI Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,PP on 31 December 2015
SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.14125 of 2015 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/ A .1 in Crime No.99 of 2015 on the file of the Station House Officer, Mothkur Police Station, Nalgonda District,
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARYCRIMINAL PETITION No.14125 of 2015
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
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 Cr.P.C. to quash theproceedings against the petitioner/A.1 in Crime No.99 of 2015 on thefile of the Station House Officer, Mothkur Police Station, NalgondaDistrict, registered for the offence under Section 306 read with 34I.P.C.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedPublic Prosecutor representing the State.
3. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is accusedNo.1 and the second respondent is the de facto complainant in CrimeNo.99 of 2015.
4. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the daughter of thesecond respondent died due to depression and stress.It is furtheralleged that after the death of his daughter, the second respondentfound two SIM Cards in her bag.The second respondent issuspecting that the petitioner is responsible for the death of hisdaughter.The daughter of the second respondent died on 04.01.2015and the second respondent lodged the complaint to the police on01.09.2015.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is thateven if the allegations made in the complaint are ex facie taken to betrue and correct, no case is made out against the petitioner.
6. Whether the petitioner has committed the alleged offence or notwill come to light during the course of investigation.While exercisingthe inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has to takeinto consideration the allegations made in the complaint only.The Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to probability,reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint atthe initial stage of investigation.The material placed before the Courti s prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter in order toascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in thecomplaint.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case andalso the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in R.P.Kapoor v.[1][2]State of Punjaband State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, I am of theconsidered view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at theinitial stage of the investigation.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that theconcerned Station House Officer may be directed not to arrest thepetitioner till completion of the investigation.
9. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of thecase and keeping in mind the future prospects of the petitioner, who isa third year B-Tech student, this Court is inclined to direct the StationHouse Officer, Mothkur Police Station, Nalgonda District, not to arrestthe petitioner/A.1 in Crime No.99 of 2015 till completion of theinvestigation.
10. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
11. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in thisCriminal Petition shall stand closed.
Date: 31.12.2015Ivd
________________________
T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J
[2]AIR 1992 SC 604