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

M.LAKSHMI DEVI & ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF A.P. & ANOTHER – Respondent


ORDER:

Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Ponnuru, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri S.Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent- State. Despite service of notice, there is no representation for the second respondent.

2. By way of the present Criminal Petition, filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., petitioners herein, who are the accused in Cr.No.39 of 2013 on the file of Yerraguntla Police Station, YSR District, are seeking quashment of the said crime.

3 The second respondent herein filed a private complaint on the file of the Court of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, under Sections 190 and 200 of Cr.P.C., for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

4. The learned Magistrate referred the said private complaint, under sub-Section (3) of Section 156 of Cr.P.C., to the police for investigation. The Station House Officer, Yerraguntla Police Station, YSR District registered the same as F.I.R.No.39 of 2013 on 26.02.2013 for the offence alleged under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the prosecution initiated at the instance of the second

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