P.Prathap Roy, v. The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., And Another,

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI Crl.P.No. 2416 of 2011 O R D E R:

This petition is filed by the Accused No.2 seeking for quash of the proceedings in Crime No.385 of 2009 of Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1st Respondent, and none appeared for the 2nd respondent in spite of notice.

3.

The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is an Advocate and he was figured as an Accused basing only on the confession of Accused No.1, which is to the effect that Accused No.1, who allegedly stole the property from the house of the complainant, gave a ring, which is part of the stolen property, to the Petitioner/ Accused No.2.

4.

There was an interim stay granted by this Court due to which the investigation could not go further. Unless the investigation is completed, it would not be known as to how the petitioner has received part of the stolen property, and whether he had knowledge of the same or not. Therefore, it is not a fit case for quash, as the investigation is not yet completed.

5.

Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________ T.RAJANI, J.

29th November, 2017 Kv