IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Not mentioned, J
A1 – Appellant
Versus
Respondent No.2 – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments presented by the petitioners and respondent (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. court's analysis and reasoning regarding the allegations (Para 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 3. legal standards for quashing a complaint (Para 10 , 24) |
| 4. final decision to quash the proceedings (Para 25) |
COMMON ORDER:
These Petitions are filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.326 of 2018 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally, in taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 488, 478, 467 , 472 read with Section 34 of IPC .
2. The respondent No.2 lodged a private complaint stating that he was an ENT Specialist and completed his Post Graduation from All India Institute of Medical Sciences at New Delhi and worked for some time at Delhi and shifted to Hyderabad and started a clinic and hospital at Panjagutta, Hyderabad in the name and style of “Asian ENT Care Center”. He gained good reputation in his profession. He was also a visiting doctor at NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. He got acquainted with A2, who was a doctor at NIMS Hospital,
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.