Tandru Venkateswara Rao, S/O. Somanna, v. State Of Andhra Pradesh,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5261 of 2017 ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/sole accused in Crime No.102 of 2017 on the file of the Station House Officer, Koyyalagudem Police Station, West Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 I.P.C., and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
2.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence much less the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the dispute between one Bolli Durga Rao and the second respondent; therefore, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. 3.
The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie constitute the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner.
4.
A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is the sole accused and the second respondent is the de-facto complainant in Crime No.102 of 2017. It is an admitted fact that the father-in-law of the second respondent owned an extent of Ac.1.18 cents of land in R.S.No.20/2D of Timmannakunta Village, West Godavari District. The father-in-law of the second respondent leased out the said land to one Durga Rao.
5.
As per the allegations made in the complaint, the said Durga Rao created false documents to defeat the legal rights of the second respondent. In that connection, the petitioner collected an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the second respondent to engage a counsel. It is further alleged that on 14.04.2017 when the second respondent demanded repayment of money, the petitioner abused her in the name of her caste. The gist of the allegations made in the complaint is that the petitioner herein cheated the second respondent and insulted her in the name of her caste. 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. Whether the petitioner has 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. 7.
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)
8.
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, Koyyalagudem Police Station, West Godavari District, is hereby directed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41A Cr.P.C. in Crime No.102 of 2017 so far as the petitioner/sole accused is concerned.
9.
With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. 10.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 06.07.2017 Ivd 5 (2014) 8 SCC 273