Ravada Neelima v. The State Of A.P

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6145 of 2017 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.486 of 2017 on the file of the Station House Officer, Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offences under Sections 354(d), 589, 506 read with 34, 379, 448 read with 511 IPC.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second respondent foisted a false case against the petitioners who have nothing to do with the relation between the second respondent and accused No.1. He further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence much less the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, therefore, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Andhra Pradesh submitted that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie constitute the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners.

3.

A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners herein are accused Nos.2 and 3 and the second respondent is the de facto complainant. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioners herein along with accused No.1

made attempts to withdraw money from the savings bank account of the second respondent. It is further alleged that the petitioners herein are sending messages to the whatsapp of the second respondent. It is further alleged that the petitioners herein along with A1 hacked the password of the second respondent and misusing the same.

4.

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. Whether the petitioners have committed the alleged offences or not will come to light during the course 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. 5.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in R.P.Kapoor v. State of Punjab1, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2, V.Y.Jose v. State of Gujarat3 and Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan4, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold. 1 AIR 1960 SC 866 2 AIR 1992 SC 604 3 (2009) 3 SCC 78 4 2015 (1) ACR 564 (SC)

6.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar5, the Station House Officer, Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam, is hereby directed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. in Crime No.486 of 2017, so far as the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned. 7.

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. _________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 26.07.2017 Rns 5 (2014) 8 SCC 273