IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7894 OF 2012 Between:
Shaik Masthan @ Masthan Saheb … Petitioner/Accused V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of AP Hyderabad … Respondents/complainant & Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner : Sri D. Kodanda Rami Reddy Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor for R-1 None appeared for R-2 The court made the following: [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7894 OF 2012 O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings in CC.No. 254 of 2010 on the file of II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle, Chittoor district for alleged offence under section 417 and 420 IPC.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for petitioner submitted that there is no prima facie material against petitioner for alleged offence of impersonation and cheating. He submitted that ingredients of section 420 IPC are not at all attracted and the present complaint is a result of family dispute. He submitted that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law.
4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that according to his instructions, trial has commenced and already seven witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution and only because of this criminal petition further progress is not there.
5. I have perused material papers filed along with this criminal petition.
6. The allegation against the petitioner is that on the false pretext of marrying, cheated defacto complainant, for which a report is given and police after due investigation found that there is prima facie material against petitioner and filed charge sheet. Police cited nine witnesses in the charge sheet and according to prosecution already seven witnesses are examined.
7. As seen from the memo of evidence, out of nine witnesses seven are private witnesses and two witnesses are Head Constable and Sub-Inspector of Police i.e., Investigating Officers. So Investigating Officers are to be examined. Therefore, at this stage, deciding the matter under 482 Cr.P.C. is nothing but going into merits or going into correctness of statements made to police by the witnesses, who were already examined as witnesses in the court during trial, which is not permissible. Therefore, I am of the view that this criminal petition can be disposed of directing petitioner to urge all these grounds before trial court and that trial court shall consider them without being influenced by dismissal of this petition or any of the observation made in this order.
8. With the above observation, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition if any, pending shall stand closed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
04/08/2014
I s L.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7894 OF 2012 Circulation No. 55 Date: 04/08/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43