SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Telangana) 121

CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
Pandiri Ramanatham – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: E Venkata Reddy

ORDER :

Heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Though Sri.K.P.Jagan Reddy, Advocate, is on record representing respondent No.2, the said counsel failed to make his appearance and submit his contentions on behalf of his client.

2. By the material available on record, and upon hearing the learned counsel what could be gathered is that respondent No.2 filed a private complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Achampet. The said complaint was referred to the Police for investigation and report. On that, the Police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.1 of 2013 of Amrabad Police Station.

3. Aggrieved by the said registration of case, the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused therein, are before this Court. They seek for quashing of the proceedings.

4. Thus, in the light of the above facts, the point that emerged for consideration is :

    Whether there exists any justifiable ground to invoke the power granted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 9 in Crime No.1 of 2013 of P.S. Amrabad, Mahaboobnagar District ?

5. Making hi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top