The court cannot quash an FIR at the initial stage if the allegations constitute cognizable offenses, and the investigating agency should be given reasonable time to conduct the investigation.

ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.

to call for the records pertaining to F.I.R.No.97 of 2018 da

22.06.2018, where C.K.Dinne Police Station, YSR Kadapa Distri registered the case against the petitioner/accused for the offences u Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C.

2. The Apex Court, after considering the plethora of citations, has the guidelines for quashing the FIR/complaints in the case of Neeha Infrastructure (P) Ltd., vs. State of Maharashtra1. Following the passed an order in the case of State vs. M.Maridoss and another2 and guidelines at paragraph Nos.13.5 and 13.15 and at paragraph No which read thus:

"13.5 While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint."

"13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."

"11. As per the settled position of law, it is the right conferred upon the investigating agency to conduct the investigation and reasonable time should be given to the investigating agency to conduct the investigation unless it is found that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence at all or the complaint is barred by any law."

3. In the present case, there is a specific allegation against petitioner herein with regard to commission of offence and there specific allegations which constitute the offences punishable u Sections 420, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. When there is a specific allegati against the petitioner for cognizable offence, this Court at the FIR stag cannot interfere or interdict the police from investigating the case at nascent stage.

4. In view of the judgments of the Apex Court referred supra and Section 41A Cr.P.C. and also the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar3.

5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any in this case shall stand closed.

REGI //TRUE COPY//

SECTION OF To, 1. STATE OF AP, Through SHO,C.K. Dinne PS. USR Kadapa Dist. Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

2. S Rama, Tahasildar, /O Mandal Revenue Office, YSR Kdadapa Dist.

3. One CC to SRI. P NARASIMHULU Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to SRI. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Advocate [OPUC]

Two CD Copies IHCUR RJ AE:50/04 RE RPN.2 f21