Manda Alwal Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 795 Tel

               THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                       CRIMINAL PETITION No.812 of 2022

ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings

against the petitioner/Accused No.2 in C.C.No.5286 of 2018 on the

file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally.

2. This Court, by order dated 20.12.2021 in Criminal Petition

No.936 of 2020 quashed the proceedings against A1/S.N.Reddy.

The present application is filed by A2 on the ground that he too

stands on the same footing and there are no other allegations

leveled against this petitioner/A2, for the said reason, prayed to

quash the proceedings on the grounds of parity.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/defacto

complainant would submit that for the reason of this Court

quashing the proceedings against A1, the proceedings against this

petitioner/A2 cannot be quashed. He relied on Rajeev Kourav v.

Baisahab and others1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the

statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C statements are

wholly inadmissible in evidence and cannot be taken into

(2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 317

consideration by the Court while adjudicating a petition filed under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the said circumstances, learned counsel

prays that the petition has to be dismissed and petitioner/A2 has

to undergo trial since there are allegations of forgery and cheating.

4. The allegation in the charge sheet is that A2 has helped A1.

This Court in Criminal Petition No.936 of 2020 held that there was

no case of forgery and disputes were civil in nature and accordingly

quashed the proceedings. The order of quashing the proceedings

against A1 has become final. When questioned, the learned

counsel stated that to his knowledge, no SLP was filed as yet.

5. There is no dispute regarding the judgment cited by the

learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in Rajeev Kourav v.

Baisahab's case (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing

with for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and found fault with

the High Court selectively relying upon Section 161 Cr.P.C

statement of one of the witnesses, who stated that the deceased

was a quarrelsome lady. However, other Section 161 Cr.P.C

statements were implicating the accused and also the ingredients of

Section 306 of IPC were made out. In the said circumstances, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that on the basis of 161 CRPC

statements, quashing of the proceedings cannot be upheld.

6. In the present case, since the order of quashing against A1

has attained finality and 2nd respondent has not questioned the

same. Further the allegation against this petitioner is that he has

assisted A1, in the said circumstances, this Court deems it

appropriate to allow the petition and quash the proceedings against

petitioenr/A2.

7. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioner/A2 in

C.C.No. 5286 of 2018 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate,

Kukatpally, are hereby quashed.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently,

miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand disposed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 15.02.2023 kvs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION No.812 of 2022

Dated 15.02.2023

kvs