← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCRLP/9044/2015dismissed

M. Praveen Reddy v. The State Of A.P.,Rep.,Pp

2015-09-30M.S.K.Jaiswal3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.9044 of 2015 Between:

M.Praveen Reddy ..... PETITIONER/A2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:

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

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9044 of 2015 ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/A2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.224 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal, Kurnool District, registered for the offences punishable under section 506 IPC.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State.

It is alleged that there were trade disputes in between the accused and the de facto complainant and A2 filed a complaint against the de facto complainant in CC.No.1154/2012 on the file of Yerra Manzil Court, Hyderabad under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. While so, on 20.10.2014 it is alleged that A1 and A2 made a phone call to the de facto complainant, abused him in filthy language and threatened to kill him if he failed to pay the demanded amount. The allegations levelled in the charge sheet against the petitioner/A2, prima facie, reveal the commission of offences, as alleged. I feel that it is not a fit case where the proceedings can be quashed. The truth or otherwise of the allegations can only be decided during course of trial. This Court is not supposed to make a roving enquiry into the allegations made in the charge sheet. I absolutely see no valid ground to quash the charge sheet.

The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below is directed not to insist for the presence of the petitioner/A2 for each and every adjournment, unless it feels that his physical presence is necessary for any specific purpose. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.

__________________

M.S.K.JAISWAL,J Date:30.09.2015 Dsr