P.Venkata Laxmi Narayana v. The State Telangana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH CRIMINAL PETITION No.6752 of 2015 Between:

P.Venkata Laxmi Narayana ..... PETITIONER-A2 AND

1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 30.07.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL 1.

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

Yes/No 2.

Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No 2.

Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

Yes/No

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL CRL.P.No.6752 of 2015 ORDER:

The petitioner, who is A-2, seeks to quash the proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.256 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Banswada, Nizamabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 466, 468 and 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

Respondent No.2 herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner herein and others for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 466, 468, 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Banswada, which was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. The Sub Inspector of Police, Nizamsagar Police Station registered it as a case in Crime No.139 of 2014. Eventually, after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid under the aforesaid offences against the petitioner-A2 and another in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Banswada and the same was numbered as C.C.No.256 of 2015.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, representing the State. A perusal of the allegations in the charge sheet would

clearly reveal a prima facie case against the petitioner-A2 for the aforesaid offences. The truth or otherwise of the allegations cannot be gone into in this petition and it can only be decided during the course of trial. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the matter at this stage by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. Instead it is better to allow the trial in the case to be expedited.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the contents of the charge sheet, the Criminal Petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to proceed with the trial of the case expeditiously. However, the trial Court shall not insist the presence of the petitioner-A2 on each and every date of adjournment unless it feels that his presence is necessary for any specific purpose. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_________________ M.S.K.JAISWAL, J 30-07-2015 Gsn