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