Syed Mohinuddin v. The State Of Telangana
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI-ANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTTON;
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR CRIMINAL pETITION NO: 6556 OF 2020 Between:
Syed Mohinuddin, S/o Jainullabuddin, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o plot N0.101, HIG 116, Karre cottage, 6th phase, KPHB, Hyderab;d .,.PETITIONER AND
1. The state of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor Through P.S. Bhainsa Town Adilabad district Presently Nirmal District, High Court of Telangana.
2. Smt. Akula Vandana, W/o Gopal Aged about 40 years, Occ. ANM in Government Area Hospital, R/o Batti Galli,Bhainsa, Nirmal District. RESPONDENTS 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 call for the records relating to the FIR vide Crime No. 61 of 2019 dated 214120t9 and there after Quash the above said FIR vide crime No. 61 of 2019 dated 21412019 which is being pending before P.s. Bhainsa Town Nirmal District against the Petitioner I.A. NO: 1OF 2020 Petition under section 482 of Ct.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the Hlgh Court may be pleased to, grant stay atl further proceedings, including arrest and appearance of the petitioner in Crime No.
61 of 2019 dated 21412019 which is being pending before P.S. Bhainsa Town Nirmal District, until disposal of the main criminal Petition ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PARANDKAR DEVENDER ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.
THE I{ON,BLE SRI JUSTICE T'VINOD KUMAR AL PETITION .6556 of ORDER:
This criminal petition is Iiled under Section 482 Cr'P'C' seeking to quash the proceedings, in FIR No'61 of 2019 dated O2,O4.201g on the file of Bhainsa Town Police Station' Nirmal District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 404' the petitioner herein is arrayed as the soie 42O lPC, wherein accused.
The criminal petition is taken up for hearing today, l. e.
06.01.2021 , through Video Conferencing 3.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. I - State. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the alleged overt acts for which the 2nd respondent had approached the 1st respondent authority and lodged a complaint are all relating to the period 2016, while the present complaint came to be lodged on 02.04.2019, after a lapse of three years. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the static silence maintained by the 2trd respondent/ defacto-complainant for over a period of three years would need be taken note of which would only go to show that the present complaint lodged against the petitioner is not a genuine complaint, but it is a vexatious complaint. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would also submit that when the acts alleged in the complaint itself complained by the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant relating to the year 2016, the 1"t respondent authority ought not to have entertained the same
having regard to the provisions of Section 468 Cr.p.C. Learned Counsel thus submits that permitting to proceed with the present crime registered would be clearly an abuse of process of Court. 5.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand would submit that based on the complaint laid by the 2nd respondent/ delacto.complainant, the above crime has been registered and being investigated into by the respondent authority. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would however fairly submit that having regard to the delay in respondent /defacto-complainant approaching and lodging the complaint, the respondent authority would take every precaution before taking any further action by putting the petitioner on notice.
6.
Having regard to the submissions made as above, and considering the delay in lodging the complaint by the 2nd respondent/ defacto-complainant would be a major factor thereby vitiating the proceedings, this Court is of the view that the respondent authority is to be directed to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., and to strictly adhere to the guidelines laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar a, State oJ Biharl and act in accordance with law. 7.
Subject to the above direction, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order.
1 (2014) B SCC 273 Sd/ -CH.VEN KATESHWARLU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII ^1---'
SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhainsa Nirmal District i, fnJStilion House Officer, bhainsa Police Station Bhainsa Nirmal District J. One CC to SRI PARANDKAR DEVENDER Advocate [OPUC] +'r*occ't-opugucpnosrcUToR,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT]
5. Two CD CoPies fr
HIGH COURT TvKJ DATEDT06/0U2021 TA S t{ :l ( /Joi)t2 1 J$,lr 2C2l a _!.
* .?
..,.,':'.
ORDER
CRLP.No.5556 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAT PETITION lt !t