Illuri Srinivas Gupta v. The Public Prosecutor (Telangana) And Another
I [ 32ss ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
TUESDAY, THE SIXIH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4768 OF 2020 Between:
years, Occupation.
Medows Colony, llluri Srinivas Gupta, S/o. Late Chenchaiah, aged. 4'1 Private Employee, R/o H.No. B-7l215l213, Tirumala Hemanagar, Boduppal, Rachakonda District, Telangana
...Petitioner
AND '1 . The Public Prosecutor (Telangana) and Another, The Honourable High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana.
2. Miss. Lunavath Kiranmai, D/o. Srinivas Gupta, Aged about 23 years, Occ' . - Stuaent, R/o. H No.3-10-79/2, Gokhalenagar, Ramanthapur, Uppal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.
... Respondents Petition under Section 482 ot Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the cc.No.337312020 on the tile of lll Metropolitan Magistrate CYberabad at LB Nagar.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of all further proceeding in cc.No.33731202o on the file of lll Metropolitan Magistrate cyberabad at LB Nagar including appearance of the petitioner,
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S Lakshmi Kanth, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No..l and of Sri Dokka Mohan Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following Order:-
THE HOI{OURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.4768 0F 2020 OR DER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the C.C.No.3373 of 2O2O on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L'B'Nagar (for short, "the trial Court")'
2.
Heard Mr. Nagendra, learned counsel representing Mr. S. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No'l-State' No representation on behalf of respondent No'2' Perused the record' 3.
The averments of the case are that on l4'O2'L997 t}le mother of the de-facto complainant got married to her fatherlllariSrinivas@SrinivasNayakandduringtheir conjugal life, they were blessed with two daughters' Later' her father married another woman' When they questioned about his second marriage, he beat them' due to which they lodged a case in Cr'No'4l of 2019 against Srinivas' for which., he threatened them with dire consequences'
EWJ CrLP.No.476A ol 2O2O Out of fear, they locked their house and went to Nalgonda. During the period of their absence, on L9.O2.2020 Srinivas along with one Raju broke open the lock of their house and committed theft of certain documents. Basing on the complaint of the de-focto complainant, a case was registered in Cr.No.586 of 2O2O of Rachakonda police Station, Upp"l, Hyderabad. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against the accused A1 and A2 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.33Z3 of 2O2O on the file of the learned trial Court. Aggrieved by the s€rme, the present Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.l, seeking to quash the C.C.No.3373 of 2O2O pending against him on the file of the learned trial Court.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting a copy of the death certificate of one Lunavath Srinivas Nayak, issued by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderbad, submits that in fact the petitioner/accused No. 1 is a different person and not the husband of the mother of the de-facto complainant. He further submits that the name of
/ J EW,J crLP.No.476a of 2O2O the petitioner is Illuri Srinivas Gupta, whereas, his name is arrayed in the charge sheet as Illuri Srinivas, which is a mistake of identity and the petitioner has nothing to do with the present crime. He further vehemently submitted that the petitioner is not the husband of the de-facto complainant's mother. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law. He, therefore, seeks to allow the petition'
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the same and contended that unless and until a full-fledged trial is being conducted, \ the real truth cannot be elicited. Therefore, seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6.
Having regard to ttre submissions made by the respective counsel and upon perusing the material available on record, as the matter is pending for quite a long time, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires adjudication at length and the trial Court, after conducting a full-fledged trial and upon examining the oral and documentary evidence available on record, would pass
BW,.I CrLP.No-476a ol 2O2O appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Criminal petition at this stage.
7.
Accordingly, the Crimina_l petition is dismissed. However, the appearance of the petitioner before the tria_l Court, is dispensed with during the course of the impugned proceedings on all occasions, except as and when required by the trial Court.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSTSTANT REGTSTRAR / \ ) ,TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The lll Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy District.
2. The Station House Officer, Uppa P.S., Rachakonda Commissionerate
3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]
4. One CC to SRI S Lakshmi Kanth, Advocate [OpUC]
5. One CC to SRI Dokka Mohan Rao, Advocate tOpUCl
6. Two CD Copies VC/gh h-
t HIGH COURT DATED:06t08t2024 ( a 1HE S TA 16:
ot 0 7 N[v 2[21 ( :z C).)
ORDER
CRLP.No.47GB ot 2020 I I I I DISMISSING THE CRLP lcop&& q,.
c{\ itt 2t fi lt f, I