IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH SATURDAY THIS THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.16254 of 2014 Between:
Tanikonda Chiranjeevi and 4 others . PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 to 5 And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and another . RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.16254 of 2014
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A5 in Cr.No.874 of 2014 of Machavarm Police Station, Vijayawada City, registered for the offences under sections 455, 341, 323, 506 r/w.Sec.149 of IPC.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners are A1 to A5 and 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioners herein entered into the house of the 2nd respondent, damaged the property and threatened her with dire consequences and locked the house. Whether the petitioners are in possession of the property or not is purely a disputed question of fact and the same will be come to light during course of investigation.
While deciding the petition 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 to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint at the initial stage of the 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.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in R.P.Kapoor v.
[1] [2]
State of Punjab and State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal , I am of the view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at the initial stage of the investigation.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the concerned Station House Officer may be directed not to arrest the petitioners till completion of the investigation.
In view of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in
[3]
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another , the Station House Office, Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City is herby directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C in Cr.No.874 of 2014 in so far as petitioners/A1 to A5 are concerned.
With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition, shall stand closed in consequence.
T.SUNIL CHOWDARY,J Date: 27.12.2014 Dsr
[1] AIR 1960 SC 866
[2] AIR 1992 SC 604
[3] 2014(8) SCALE 250