IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY THE TWENTYSEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3874 OF 2012 Between:
R. Laxman Naik … Petitioner/A-4 V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Through Station House Officer, Kurnool Taluk Police Station, Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P.
Hyderabad & Anr. ... Respondents/Complainant Counsel for Petitioners : Sri V.K. Naidu Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor The court made the following : [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3874 OF 2012 O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash Proceedings in CC.No. 463 of 2011 on the file of XVII-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for offences under section 448, 427, 324, 406, 420, 506, 109 read with section 120-B of IPC against petitioner/A4.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for petitioner submitted that second respondent filed a private complaint showing A-1 to A-3 as accused but police after investigation included the name of this petitioner also attributing provisions of section 109 IPC and that petitioner is no way concerned with the transaction and even civil suit is pending. He submitted that the alleged GPA was in the year 1992, i.e., long prior to the alleged incident. Therefore, petitioner is falsely implicated.
4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as seen from the statements of LWs 10 and 11, the petitioner introduced one Laxminarayana and that there is role of petitioner as per statement of witnesses, therefore, there is prima facie material against this petitioner, who is arrayed as A-4.
5. I have perused material papers. The allegations and counter-allegations of both parties cannot be decided at this stage in a petition under 482 Cr.P.C. and these aspects have to be appreciated only on the basis of evidence. As seen from the proceedings, C.C. is of the year 2011 and according to advocate for petitioner because of NBW pending against A-3, there is no progress in the proceedings before trial court.
6. Considering the facts of the case and submissions of both sides, this Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to take all these grounds before trial court and also take steps to get the case separated against A-3 to proceed further with trial and the trial court shall consider the grounds raised on behalf of petitioner, without being influenced by dismissal of this criminal petition.
7. With the above observation, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
27/06/2014 I s L HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3874 OF 2012 Circulation No. Date: 27/06/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 20th Court Hall