Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S.Kumar Munaparthi vs State Of Ap on 15 February, 2024
[ 3330 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
TUESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 449 OF 2019
Between:
1. S.KUMAR MUNAPARTHI, S/o.Appa rao, Aged 33 years, R/o.Door No.5-36/1,
Laxmipuram, Pendurthy, Visakhapatnam.
2. Munaparthi Nookarathanam,, W/o Apparao, Aged 48 years, R/o.Door No.16-61,
SC Colony, Old Gopala Puram, Gopala patanam rural, Prahaladapuram,
Visakhapatnam
3. Munaparthi Apparao, S/o. late Venkata Swamy,Aged 61 years, R/o.Door No.16-
61, SC Colony, Old Gopala Puram, Gopala patanam rural, Prahaladapuram,
Visakhapatnam.
4. Manuparthy Sandhya, W/o. Nallamothula Dileep Aged 29 years, R/o.Door
No.16-61, SC Colony, Old Gopala Puram, Gopala patanam rural,
Prahaladapuram, Visakhapatnam.
5. Nallamothula Dilip, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Aged 30,R/o 10-21,kondagudem
Kamavarapukota Mandalam, West Godavari.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. STATE OF AP, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court For the State of
Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi
2. Pippara Laxmi Prasanna, W/o Nagaraju,Aged 35 years, R/o Palivela
Village,Kothapeta Mandal, East Godavari District,Andhra Pradesh
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court To quash
the proceedings in FIR NO.804/2018 on the file of PS Pendurthy, Vishakhapatnam.
I.A. NO: 2 OF 2019
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be
pleased To stay all further proceedings in FIR No.804/2018 on the file of PS
2
Pendurthy Visakhapatnam, including arrest of the petitioners, pending disposal of
the main quash proceedings fin the interest of justice.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated
in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased
To dispense with filing of the original certified copy o FIR and complainant, dated
15.12.2018 land subsequently 14.04.2018 on the file of before this Honourable
Court.
This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of
Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri KIRAN KUMAR
BALIGAMSETTI ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG/AP) on
behalf of the Respondent No. and of Sri_Advocate for the Respondent No.
The Court made the following Order:
The present Criminal Petition is filed canvassing the
registration of FIR No.804 of 2018, dated 15.12.2018 of Pendurthy
Police Station, Visakhapatnam, for the offence under Sections
498A, 354, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, to quash the proceedings against
petitioners/Accused Noa.1 to 4 and 6.
2. The Apex Court, after considering the plethora of citations,
has laid the guidelines for quashing the FIR/complaints, in the
case of Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of
Maharashtra and others1. Following the said judgment and
reiterating the same guidelines, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
passed an order in the case of State v. M. Maridoss and
1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315
3
another2 and the guidelines at paragraph Nos. 13.5 and 13.15
and at paragraph No. 11, which read 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"
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".
2 (2023) 4 SCC 338
4
3. In the present case, there is a specific allegation against the
petitioner herein with regard to commission of offence. When
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 at the nascent stage.
4. 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 are directed to follow the procedure
prescribed under Section 41A Cr.P.C. and also the guidelines laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar
vs. State of Bihar3
5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in
this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. STATE OF AP, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court For the State of
Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi
2. Pippara Laxmi Prasanna, W/o Nagaraju,Aged 35 years, R/o Palivela
Village,Kothapeta Mandal, East Godavari District,Andhra Pradesh
3. One CC to SRI. KIRAN KUMAR BALIGAMSETTI Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC to SRI. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Advocate [OPUC]
Two CD Copies
3 (2014) 8 SCC 273
5
HIGH COURT
TRRJ
DATED:13/02/2024
The linked image cannot be
display ed. The file may hav e been
mov ed, renamed, or deleted.
V erify that the link points to the
correct file and location.
ORDER
