P.Mogulaiah vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
First Hearing
Listed On:
28 Mar 2013
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.2911 of 2013
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.448 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.
-
The accusation leveled against the petitioners is that on 24-4- 2012, they objected the de facto complainant from discharging her duties. She lodged report before the Station House Officer, Mominpet on 15-5-2012. After due investigation, the S.I. of Police, Mominpet P.S laid a charge sheet in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Vikarabad. The learned J.F.C.M., Vikarabad took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.448 of 2012. Hence, this petition with a prayer stated supra.
-
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1 st respondent-State.
-
It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the version of the de facto complainant is highly improbable and there is considerable delay in filing report and that delay itself speaks of falsity of the accusations leveled against the petitioners.
-
Lw-1-Smt.Kota Suvida presented report before the Station House Officer, Mominpet that she has been attacked by the petitioners herein. It is also stated therein that they also obstructed the duties of DRP Shaker and other staff who were discharging their duties regarding social audit (NREGS) at Yenkepally. During the course of investigation, the police examined Annaladasu Shanker, Madarapu
Vishnu, Laxmigari Mallesham, R.Srinivas, Kavali Durgaiah, Smt. Padeka Sathyamma and Dasari Ramchandraiah and recorded their statements. All of them supported the version of the de facto complainant. Such is the material gathered during the course of investigation, I am of the view that further proceedings in C.C.No.448 of 2012 cannot be interdicted by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J
_____________________
Dt.28-03-2013 RAR