Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedingsunder Section 420 IPC= Since the trial has already been commenced and five witnesses have been examined, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings at this stage.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD           

Crl.P.No.4258 of 2013
       
09-04-2018

Kota Gangaram @ Gangarapu Gangaram, s/o. Hanmantha Rao, aged:38 years occ:Nil  R/o.H.No.3-2-193, Ramnagar Picket, Secunderab       

The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. . Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Katam Srinivas

Counsel for Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor (TG)
Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri R. Venkata Reddy 


<Gist :

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:

-nil-


THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD           

Crl.P.No.4258 of 2013

ORDER 
       
      This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.302 of 2012 on the file
of VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, against
the petitioner/A3.
2.      The petitioner is A3, who is alleged to have committed the
offence punishable under Section 420 IPC along with A1, A2 and A4
to A6.  On the complaint of the second respondent/de-facto
complainant, the police registered a case in Cr.No.257 of 2011 on
09.12.2011 for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.  After
investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet in this case.
3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner/A3 has nothing to do with the commission of the offence
as his name does not find place in the partnership deed and he is no
way connected with the transaction and therefore, the proceedings
against the petitioner may be quashed.
4.      Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the
charge sheet was taken on file, CC was numbered and five
witnesses have been examined in this case. He further submitted
that as there is no stay granted by this Court, the trial is being
proceeded with by the trial Court and that there are no grounds to
quash the proceedings in this case.
5.      The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned counsel for the second respondent can be considered
only by going through the material evidence.  The question of fact
cannot be decided at this stage. Since the trial has already been
commenced and five witnesses have been examined, it is not 
appropriate to quash the proceedings at this stage.
6.      Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Criminal Petition is disposed of, directing the trial Court to dispose of
C.C.No.302 of 2012 expeditiously.
7.      Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition
shall stand closed.

___________________________   
GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J       
9th April, 2018

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.