Telangana High Court
CRLP/8121/2012 of Krishna Mohan Tiwari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8121 OF 2012 ORDER: This is a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (for short, ‘ the CrPC’) by the petitioner/A1 requesting to quash the proceedings in a case in
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8121 OF 2012
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 is a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (for short, ‘the CrPC’) by thepetitioner/A1 requesting to quash the proceedings in a case inCr.No.116/2012 of Bangarupalyam Police Station, Chittoor District registeredfor the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 509 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Section 4 of theDowry Prohibition Act.
2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for thepetitioner/A1 and of the learned Public Prosecutor. None appeared for thesecond respondent. I have carefully perused the material record.
3. The case of the petitioner/A1 is that this is a second report orsecond complaint with the self same allegations, which are mentioned in theearlier report/complaint, and that pursuant to the earlier report/complaint acase in Cr.No.693/2012 was registered by the Station House Officer, Kotwalicity police station for the self same offences and that therefore, the crimeregistered on the second complaint alleging the same facts is liable to bequashed since hit by Section 162 of the CrPC.
4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for thepetitioner/A1, the learned Public Prosecutor had sought time to obtaininstructions as to what is the stage of investigation in the earlier crime and theresult thereof.
5. When the matter is taken up today, the learned Public Prosecutorhas submitted that in the earlier registered crime before mentioned, theinvestigation is completed and that a charge sheet was filed and a case wastaken on file by the Court concerned of Uttar Pradesh State and that the said case is coming up for appearance of the accused. Therefore, it is clear thatthe second complaint/report on the self same facts, which gave raise toregistration of the present crime, ought not to have been entertained and theinvestigation into the present crime by the police once again for the self sameoffences on the same set of facts would amount to abuse of the process ofCourt and the law. The law is well settled that the registration of the secondFIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C on the basis of the second report as crimeNo.116 of 2012 is not valid and consequently the investigation madepursuant thereto is of no legal consequence and on this ground alone theproceedings in the present crime are to be quashed. This view of this courtfinds support from the ratio in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inT.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others[[1]]. Accordingly, it is held that thepetitioner has made out valid and sufficient grounds for granting the relief.
6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedingsin Cr.No.116/2012 of Bangarupalyam Police Station, Chittoor District arequashed. However, it is needless to add that this order does not preclude theinvestigating agency concerned from seeking leave of the Court concerned ofUttar Pradesh State for making further investigation and filing further chargesheet if it so desires.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this petition shall standclosed.
_______________________
M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J
Date: 30.12.2014MVA
[1]2001 Crl.L.J 3329(1)