High Court for State of TelanganaCRLP/10726/2015dismissed

Karri Phanindra Reddy v. The State Of A.P.,Rep.,Pp

2015-12-01T.Sunil Chowdary2 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10726 of 2015 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A3 in Crime No.253 of 2014 on the file of the Station House Officer, Mandapeta Town Police Station, East Godavari District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 352 and 506 read with 34 IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 09.11.2014, the petitioner is not in Mandapeta Town; therefore, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has to establish that he was not in Mandapeta Town on 09.11.2014.

3. The petitioner is A3 and second respondent is de facto complainant in Crime No.253 of 2014. As per the allegations made in the complaint, on 09.11.2014, the petitioner along with his parents trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and beat her. It is further alleged that the petitioner and others also threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences. Whether the petitioner was in Mandapeta Town on 09.11.2014 or not will come to light during the course of investigation.

5. It is needless to say that the court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint while exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in order to quash the criminal proceedings at the initial stage of investigation. The court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry to ascertain the truthfulness, genuineness or otherwise of the 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 complaint do not constitute the offence much less the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, then this court can quash the proceedings in

order to prevent abuse of process of court thereby to secure the ends of justice.

6. I have carefully perused the allegations made in the complaint in order to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable thereby to quash the proceedings. The material available on record is prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in R.P.Kapoor v State of Punjab, State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, V.Y.Jose v State of Gurajat and Teeja Devi v State of Rajasthan, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the concerned Station House Officer may be directed not to arrest the petitioner/A3 during the pendency of the investigation. In view of the orders of this court dated 13.10.2015, the Station House Officer, Mandapeta Town Police Station, East Godavari District, is hereby directed not to arrest the petitioner/A3 in Crime No.253 of 2014 till completion of the investigation.

9. With the above direction, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the criminal petition, shall stand closed. _________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J December 01, 2015.