Telangana High Court
CRLP/16380/2014 of Smt.Y.Saramma W/o Y.Venkatesulu Vs The State on 30 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.16380 of 2014 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/ A .5 in Crime No.136 of 2014 of Guntakal II Town Police Station, Guntakal, Anantapur District, registered for the
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARYCRIMINAL PETITION No.16380 of 2014
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 Cr.P.C. to quash theproceedings against the petitioner/A.5 in Crime No.136 of 2014 ofGuntakal II Town Police Station, Guntakal, Anantapur District,registered for the offences under Sections 420 I.P.C.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedPublic Prosecutor.
A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is accusedNo.5 and respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant in CrimeNo.136 of 2014.
As per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitionerherein along with accused Nos.1 to 4 committed theft of silver articlesin the house of respondent No.2 with an intention to cheat him.
While deciding the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Courthas to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaintonly.The Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as toprobability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in thecomplaint at the initial stage of investigation.The material placedbefore the Court is prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter inorder to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations madein the complaint.
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.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that theconcerned Station House Officer may be directed not to arrest thepetitioner till completion of the investigation.
In view of the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another[[3]], the Station HouseOfficer, Guntakal II Town Police Station, is hereby directed to followthe procedure as contemplated under Section 41A Cr.P.C. in CrimeNo.136 of 2014 so far as the petitioner/A.5 is concerned.
With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in thisCriminal Petition shall stand closed.
Date:30.12.2014KH
________________________
T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J
[1]AIR 1960 SC 866AIR 1960 SC 866
[2]AIR 1992 SC 604AIR 1992 SC 604
[3]2014 (8) SCALE 2502014 (8) SCALE 250