Muppidi Sudhakar Rao v. The State Of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.188 of 2016 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 in Crime No.269 of 2015 on the file of the Station House Officer, Suryapet (R) Police Station, Nalgonda District, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 341 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.

3. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 and the second respondent is the de facto complainant in Crime No.269 of 2015.

4. As per the allegations made in the complaint, on 20.12.2015, the petitioners trespassed into the land of the second respondent in an extent of Ac.1.00 in Survey No.836 of Balemla Village, Suryapet Mandal, Nalgonda District and damaged the standing crop. It is further alleged that the petitioners wrongfully confined the second respondent and threatened him with dire consequences.

5. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners filed O.S.No.106 of 2011 and the same was decreed in their favour. Whether the petitioners have committed the alleged offences or not will come to light during the course of investigation.

6. While exercising the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into 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 at the initial stage of

investigation. The material placed before the Court 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 principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in R.P.Kapoor [1] [2], I am of the v. State of Punjab and State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at the initial stage of the investigation.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the concerned Station House Officer may be directed not to arrest the petitioners till completion of the investigation.

9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to direct the Station House Officer, Suryapet (R) Police Station, Nalgonda District, not to arrest the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 in Crime No.269 of 2015 till completion of the investigation.

10. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

11. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 07.01.2016 Ivd [1] AIR 1960 SC 866 [2] AIR 1992 SC 604