Sec.482 Cr.P.C. = Sections 120-B, 341, 302 and 201 read with 34 I.P.C. = confession is not admissible before the trial Court= the petitioner/A-2 is added as an accused on the basis of the confession made by co-accused and that the said confession is not admissible before the trial Court. This Court is also aware of the said fact, but at the same time, the confession of co-accused can be relied upon by the Investigating Agency for the purpose of investigation. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations can be ascertained by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings against the petitioner in the above crime.




CRLP 12 / 2016
CRLPSR 49323 / 2015CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
SRI T.RAMU  VSTHE STATE OF A.P., & ANOTHER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12 OF 2016
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner/A-2 seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.10 of 2015 on the file of Tiruchanur Police Station, Tirupati Mandal, Chittoor District.
2. Heard and perused the material available on record.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 120-B, 341, 302 and 201 read with 34 I.P.C. 
4. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner/A-2 is added as an accused on the basis of the confession made by co-accused and that the said confession is not admissible before the trial Court. This Court is also aware of the said fact, but at the same time, the confession of co-accused can be relied upon by the Investigating Agency for the purpose of investigation. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations can be ascertained by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings against the petitioner in the above crime
5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 28.3.2016 AMD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.12 OF 2016 Date: 28.3.2016 AMD

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.

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.

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