Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD
E.V. VENUGOPAL
Mumai Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad – Respondent
ORDER :
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J.
1 This criminal petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein in Cr.No.51 of 2009 on the file of P.S Basar, Nizamabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 468 , 420, 196, 197 and 198 of IPC.
2 Heard Sri Surender Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.Ramchander Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent - State and Sri Sumanth Ravuri, learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the record.
3 The genesis for filing of the present criminal petition is that on a complaint lodged by the second respondent herein – Sri A.Chandra Babu, Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa, Adilabad (as he then was) alleging that the petitioner had produced forged documents and gave false information in the case filed before him i.e. O.P.No.4 of 2006 with reference to his election as Sarpanch of Basar Gram Panchayat and during the course of arguments the same was noticed by him. Consequent upon the said complaint made to the Superintendent of Police, Adilabad District, the present crime was reg
A valid written complaint is required under Section 195 Cr.P.C. to initiate criminal proceedings for forgery related to evidence presented in court, highlighting procedural safeguards against wrongfu....
Petitioner has not been confined for illegal purpose amounting to commission of offence. As such, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the liberty granted to him by filing the complaint under Sect....
Section 415 of IPC mandates that there should be inducement from hands of accused to victim to part with any property and transaction should be tainted with dishonest intention right from its outset.
Stage of taking of cognizance of the offence and issuing process, and the stage when the charge is to be framed against the accused or alternatively the accused is to be discharged are different stag....
The court clarified that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. limits cognizance of forgery only if it occurs after the document has been submitted in court.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the continuation of criminal proceedings based on allegations of fabricated documents and false evidence must be supported by sufficient ev....
The court ruled that charges under IPC Sections 193 and 471 require a prior written complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C., highlighting the jurisdictional limits on the Magistrate's authority to frame ....
The court held that allegations of forgery and cheating in the FIR do not have a predominantly civil profile and are not barred under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C., thus the FIR cannot be quashed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the restriction imposed by Section 195 of Cr.P.C. on the power of the Court to take cognizance of certain offences, and the interpretation of 'fals....
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
