IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2248 OF 2012 Between:
Dr.V.Kusuma N.Rao & Anr. … Petitioners/A-1 & A-2 V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents/Complainant Counsel for Petitioners : Sri K. Mallikarjuna Rao Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor for R-1 Sri P.Veera Reddy for R-2 The court made the following : [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2248 OF 2012 O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash FIR in Crime No.712 of 2011 of Panjagutta Police Station for alleged offences under section 405, 420, 422, 464, 468, 474, 506 and 120-B IPC.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for petitioners submitted that alleged incident attributed against the son of A-3 was in the year 1998 and after a lapse of thirteen years, present complaint is filed only with a view to harass the petitioners.
4. He submitted that complainant approached State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and National Commission and both the forums have not accepted the claim of defacto complainant. He submitted that under the guise of this crime, police are threatening the petitioners and also visiting the house of petitioners and harassing them. He further submitted that there is no prima facie material attracting any of the offences alleged in the complaint and the same has to be quashed.
5. On the other hand, advocate for second respondent submitted that there are specific allegations in the complaint and the same will come to light only after investigation.
6. I have perused the material papers filed alongwith this criminal petition.
7. Though advocate for petitioners contended that claim of complainant for compensation is not accepted by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and also National Commission, as seen from the complaint, there is no allegation of any negligence attracting offence under section 338 or 337 IPC and one of the allegation is in respect of incident on 02/6/2011. Other allegation is that defacto complainant was induced and cheated by these two petitioners. To decide these aspects collection of evidence, is necessary.
8. As seen from the proceedings sheet, this court has already directed the police not to arrest the petitioners in connection with this crime and it appears that petitioners have obtained anticipatory bail. Since there is no apprehension of arrest, I feel directing the police to expedite investigation and file final report by collecting evidence with reference to allegations made in the complaint, this petition can be disposed of. Police should not cause any inconvenience by visiting the house of the petitioners and if presence of petitioners is needed for investigation they should be summoned by following provisions of Criminal Procedure Code.
9. With the above observation, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
02/07/2014 I s L HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2248 OF 2012 Circulation No.58 Date: 02/07/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 41st Court Hall