Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1096 AP
Judgement Date : 9 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.424 OF 2019
ORDER:
The present criminal petition is filed to call for the records
pertaining to Crime No.197 of 2018, dated 01.09.2018 before
Sattenapalli Town Police Station, Guntur District. Wherein,
Stattenapalli police registered offence under Section 420 read with
34 IPC.
2. There is a specific allegation in the report lodged to the police
against the petitioner, which attracts Section 420 read with 34 IPC.
3. The Apex Court, after considering the plethora of citations,
has laid the guidelines for quashing the FIR/complaints, in the case
of Niharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of
Maharastra1. Following the said judgment and reiterating the same
guidelines, the Apex Court has passed an order in the case of State
vs. M.Maridoss and another2 and the guidelines at paras 13.5
and 13.15 and at para 11, which reads thus:
"13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint".
2021 SCC online SC 315
(2023) 4 SCC 338
"13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the Court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."
"11. As per the settled position of law, it is the right conferred upon the investigating agency to conduct the investigation and reasonable time should be given to the investigating agency to conduct the investigation unless it is found that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence at all or the complaint is barred by any law."
4. In the present case, there is a specific allegation against the
petitioner herein with regard to commission of offence. While there
is a specific allegation against the petitioner for cognizable offence,
this Court at the FIR stage cannot interfere or interdict the police
from investigating the case.
5. In view of the judgments of the Apex Court referred supra
and as the offence alleged is punishable with imprisonment of less
than seven years, the police is directed to follow the procedure
prescribed under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and also the guidelines laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of
Bihar3.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
criminal petition shall stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 09.02.2024 DSV
(2014) 8 SCC 273
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.424 OF 2019
Date: 09.02.2024
DSV
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE: Crl.P.No.454 of 2019 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. Office DATE ORDER No Note
03. 09.02.2024 TRR, J
The Criminal Petition is disposed of.
(vide separate order)
_______ TRR, J DSV
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!