Back
V. R. K. KRUPA SAGAR
B. Veeranjaneyulu – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
ORDER :
Accused No.3 in C.C.No.31 of 2018 on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the proceedings therein as against him.
2. Respondent No.1 is the State. Respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant. Despite notice being received, none entered appearance for respondent No.2.
3. Sri R.Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 submitted arguments.
4. The following facts require attention here:
At or about in the year 2008 for the purpose of use some drugs were purchased by D.M. and H.O., Kurnool. The Government of Andhra Pradesh launched Rajiv Arogyasri Programme in Kurnool District and it was at that time on 22.09.2008 certain news items were published in the newspapers about various travails suffered by the citizens because of absence of medicines and absence of proper treatment and absence of arrangements in that programme. Newspapers also reported misappropriation of funds on part of the authorities in purchase of drugs and other items. It was in that regard a vigilance enquiry was initiated and finally t
Offences punishable with imprisonment beyond three years are not barred by Section 468 Cr.P.C. Defense of being on leave during the relevant period is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings.
Point of Law : Language of Section 468(3) makes it imperative that the limitation provided for taking cognizance is in respect of the offence charged and not in respect of offence finally proved.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the limitation period for filing a complaint and the necessity of impleading responsible persons in a complaint again....
The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allows quashing of proceedings only when no prima facie case is disclosed, with issues surrounding evidence and role requiring trial evaluation.
The main legal point established is that the filing of a charge sheet after the prescribed period of limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C is barred by law.
Court is of the view that after taking into account the law of limitation, the complaint ought to have been filed within three years from the date of detection of offence.
Cognizance of offences specified in an FIR is barred after the expiry of the period of limitation as per Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
Point of Law : Offence of Cheating - Inherit Powers of High Court - Extraordinary and inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., do not tilt in favour of the petitioners to pass an or....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
