Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 688 (TS)

Sindhura P v. State Of Telangana

2020-09-10

K.LAKSHMAN

body2020
JUDGMENT K.Lakshman, J. - This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner/A-3 to quash the proceedings in FIR No.220 of 2019 of SHO, Chandur Police Station, Nalgonda District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC and Section 102 of Cr.P.C. 2. Sri Shaik Ahmed Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner/A-3 would strongly contend that as per the contents of the above FIR as well as the Remand Report, ingredients of Section 379 of IPC are lacking. The subject property was not recovered from the petitioner/A-3. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner/A-3 is only a Motor Mechanic. He has also placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BHAJAN LAL vs. STATE OF HARYANA, (1992) Supp1 SCC 335 . He would further submit that there is no primafacie allegation against the petitioner/A-3. With the said contentions, he sought to quash the proceedings in FIR No.220 of 2019 of SHO, Chandur Police Station, Nalgonda District. 3. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 - State opposed the application stating that the allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature and there are specific overt acts against the petitioner/A-3. With the said contentions, the learned Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the present application. 4. A perusal of the Remand Report shows that the police have specifically stated that after completing the confessioncum-seizure panchanama, A-1 to A-3 were brought to the Police Station along with the seized bikes, net cash of Rs.1,000/- at 17.00 hours. It is also stated that investigation done so far in the case would establish that A-2 and A-3 are close friends and they are eking out their livelihood by means of bike mechanism, while A-1 without any work, so they did not get sufficient earning from their profession for their luxuries and family needs. Therefore, A-1 to A-3 planned to commit thefts in and around their area for getting easy money. So, A-2 contacted A-1 and A-2 and A-3 committed thefts of bikes in Hyderabad City and Chandur Village and sold out the same through A-1. Further, A-1 also committed theft in Chandur including this theft and further A-1 also sold out the bikes of A-4 through the mediatorship of A-5 and A-6 for their wrongful gain. So, A-2 contacted A-1 and A-2 and A-3 committed thefts of bikes in Hyderabad City and Chandur Village and sold out the same through A-1. Further, A-1 also committed theft in Chandur including this theft and further A-1 also sold out the bikes of A-4 through the mediatorship of A-5 and A-6 for their wrongful gain. Thus, A-1 to A-4 committed theft of all the bikes stolen by the accused persons, except the bike bearing No.AP-24-S-0414 of this case and AP-11-AR-5018 of Crime No.141/2019 of Gopalapuram Police Station, which are yet to be identified their owners to claim the said bikes. Therefore, all the said bikes were seized under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. 5. Thus, the above stated facts would reveal that the police, on completion of investigation, prima-facie, came to the conclusion with regard to the commission of offence by A-1 to A-3. There are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner/A-3. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are triable. The petitioner has to face trial and put-forth his defence. Thus, the petitioner/A-3 failed to establish any ground or circumstance to interfere and to quash the proceedings in the present FIR No.220 of 2019 of SHO, Chandur Police Station, Nalgonda District. The petitioner is also involved in other offences in respect of the theft of bikes included in C.C.No.653 of 2020 on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. Primafacie, it appears that the petitioner is a habitual offender. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly, dismissed. 7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.