there was no cheating and there was no loss to the de-facto complainant and prayed to quash the complaint. = weighing machine was showing excess of 9 Kgs., of cotton for each quintal. Therefore, there is a deception allegedly played by the petitioners with regard to weighing of cotton material. If the weighment is accepted, there would be a wrongful loss to the complainant and thereby, the petitioners would gain wrongfully. Hence, there are no grounds at this stage to quash the proceedings.

CRLP 78 / 2013

CRLPSR 312 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
KATTEBOINA VENKATESHWARLU & 4 OTHERS  VSTHE STATE OF A.P., REP. BY ITS P.P., & ANR
PET.ADV. : PRAKASH REDDYRESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: U/s.482 Cr.p.c Quash the F.I.RDISTRICT:  NALGONDA
FILING DATE:  03-01-2013POSTING STAGE :  FOR ADMISSIONDISPOSED ON  :  04-01-2013  DIS
REG. DATE    :   03-01-2013LISTING DATE :  04-01-2013STATUS   :  ---------
HON'BLE JUDGE(S):K.C.BHANU    

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU


CRIMINAL PETITION No.78 of 2013


ORDER:
           
The petitioners/A1 to A5 filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for records in F.I.R.No.90 of 2012 of Arvapalli Police Station, Nalgonda district registered for the offence under Sections 264 and
420 IPC and to quash the same.

2.      The brief facts of the case is that the second respondent has made a complaint to the Station House Officer, Arvapalli Police Station, Nalgonda district alleging that he has taken 20 acres of land from the farmers of his village and has raised the crop of cotton; that after harvesting the cotton he has decided to sell it to the first petitioner, though petitioners 4 to 5 who have fixed the rate at Rs.3535/- per quintal; that basing on such rate, on 26-12-2012 at 7.00 p.m. after weighing the cotton loaded the same into the lorry and after loading 94 bags he got doubt about KANTA and after proper weighing he found that there is excess of 9 Kgs., for one quintal. It is further alleged that when he enquired and demanded petitioners 2 and 3 have escaped from the place. Hence, the complaint.

3.      Heard.

4.      Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was no cheating and there was no loss to the de-facto complainant and prayed to quash the complaint.

5.      The allegations in the complaint would clearly go to show that the weighing machine was showing excess of 9 Kgs., of cotton for each quintal. Therefore, there is a deception allegedly played by the petitioners with regard to weighing of cotton material. If the weighment is accepted, there would be a wrongful loss to the complainant and thereby, the petitioners would gain wrongfully. Hence, there are no grounds at this stage to quash the proceedings.

6.      Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

7.      Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

______________________
JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
January 04, 2013
PN

 

 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 















 

 

 





CRIMINAL PETITION No.78 of 2013





January 04, 2013


PN


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.