Mohammed Lateefullah Shareef v. The State Of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10676 OF 2015 ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A.1 & A.2 in Cr.No.1006 of 2015 on the file of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 506 and 511 of IPC. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 and the second respondent is the de-facto complainant in Cr.No.1006 of 2015 on the file of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad. As per the allegations made in the complaint, on 07.09.2015, the petitioners made an attempt to enter into the house of the second respondent. It is further alleged that the petitioners tried to threaten the second respondent with dire consequences.
4 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence, much less the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. While disposing of the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the Court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint. The Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. The very purpose of investigation is to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. The allegations made in the complaint are prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and also the principle laid down in R.P.Kapoor v. State of Punjab[1], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal[2], V.Y.Jose v State of
Gurajat[3] and Teeja Devi v State of Rajasthan[4], I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage.
6 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Station House Officer, Banjara Hills Police Station may be directed not to arrest the petitioners pending investigation in the crime. 7 Taking into consideration the nature of allegations made in the complaint and in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar[5], the Station House Officer, Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad is hereby directed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41 A of Cr.P.C., in Cr.No.1006 of 2015 so far as the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 are concerned.
Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
____________________ T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 3rd November, 2015 Kvsn [1] AIR 1960 SC 866 [2] AIR 1992 SC 604 [3] (2009) 3 SCC 78 [4] 2015 (1) ACR 564 (SC) [5] 2014(8) SCALE 250