Podapati Srinivasa Rao v. The State Of A.P

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5843 of 2017 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 in Crime No.76 of 2017 on the file of the Station House Officer, Addanki Police Station, Prakasam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 463, 464 and 120B read with 109 I.P.C.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no relationship between the second respondent and the petitioners herein in any capacity whatsoever; therefore, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. He further submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint ex facie taken to be true and correct, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. 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 petitioners.

4.

A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners are accused Nos.3 to 5 and the second respondent is the de-facto complainant in Crime No.76 of 2017.

5.

As per the allegations made in the complaint, accused No.1 sold the property to the second respondent on 08.04.2010 without any right whatsoever. The gist of the allegations made in the complaint is that the petitioners herein along with the other

accused created sale deeds without any right whatsoever, thereby cheated the second respondent.

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 petitioners have 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.

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, Addanki Police Station, Prakasam District, is hereby directed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41A Cr.P.C. in 1 AIR 1960 SC 866 2 AIR 1992 SC 604 3 (2009) 3 SCC 78 4 2015 (1) ACR 564 (SC) 5 (2014) 8 SCC 273

Crime No.76 of 2017 so far as the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 are concerned.

9.

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 19.07.2017 Ivd