CRLP/14097/2015 of P.Pandu Goud Vs The State of Telangana on 30 December 2015

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARYCRIMINAL PETITION No.14097 of 2015ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash theproceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.733of 2015 on the file of Station House Officer, K.P.H.B. PoliceStation, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Cyberabad, registered underSections 468, 420, 448 and 506 IPC.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedPublic Prosecutor representing the State.

As per the allegations made in the complaint, the secondrespondent’s aunt by name Lathakumari is the owner of the housebearing No.LIG-1045 Kukatpally. It is further alleged that thesecond respondent is the adopted son of the said Lathakumari. Asper the case of the prosecution, the petitioner herein createddocuments with an ulterior motive to deprive the legal rights of thesecond respondent. It is further alleged that the petitionerthreatened the second respondent with dire consequences. Whether the petitioner has committed the alleged offence or notwill come to light during the course of investigation only.

It is needless to say that the court has to take intoconsideration the allegations made in the complaint whileexercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in orderto quash the criminal proceedings at the initial stage ofinvestigation. The court is not justified in embarking upon anenquiry to ascertain the truthfulness, genuineness or otherwise ofthe allegations made in the complaint. It is a settled principle of law that the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate investigation. If the allegations made in the complaintdo not constitute the offence much less the offence alleged tohave been committed by the petitioner, then this court can quashthe proceedings in order to prevent abuse of process of courtthereby to secure the ends of justice.

I have carefully perused the material available on record inorder to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaintare patently absurd and inherently improbable thereby to quash theproceedings. The material available on record is prima faciesufficient to investigate into the matter in order to ascertain thetruthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the caseand also the principle enunciated in R.P.KAPOOR v. STATE OF[1][2]PUNJAB,STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL,[3]V.Y.JOSE V STATE OF GURAJATAND TEEJA DEVI v.[4]STATE OF RAJASTHAN,I am of the considered view that thisis not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings at thethreshold.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that theconcerned Station House Officer may be directed not to arrest thepetitioner till completion of investigation.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,the Station House Officer, K.P.H.B.Police Station, Cyberabad, ishereby directed not to arrest the petitioner/accused No.1 in CrimeNo.733 of 2015 till completion of investigation.

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending inthis Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

Date:30.12.2015Rns

_____________________T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

[1]AIR 1960 SC 866AIR 1960 SC 866

[2]AIR 1992 SC 604AIR 1992 SC 604

[3](2009) 3 SCC 78(2009) 3 SCC 78

[4]2015 (1) ACR 564 (SC)2015 (1) ACR 564 (SC)