Telangana High Court
Kutadi Srinivas vs The State Of Telangana on 2 November, 2022
Author: Chillakur Sumalatha
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9638 OF 2022
ORDER:-
1. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who is representing Respondent No.1.
2. In the light of the limited relief sought for, issuance of notice to 2nd respondent is felt not necessary.
3. Seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioner who is arrayed as Accused in Crime No.830 of 2022 of Medchal Police Station, Cyberabad District, the present Criminal Petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the dispute is purely civil in nature and the averments in the complaint itself discloses the same. Learned counsel also states that the 2nd respondent is pressurizing the concerned police to arrest the petitioner and indeed, none of the ingredients of Section 386 IPC attracts. Learned counsel also states that the petitioner has not committed any offences, much less the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 and 386 IPC. Learned counsel seeks protection from arbitrary arrest. Learned counsel also 2 Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.9638 of 2022 states that a direction may be issued to police to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C..
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand states that the case is under investigation.
6. Section 386 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said provision does not attract the case facts. The submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, is that the case is under investigation. Therefore, this Court considers desirable to pass appropriate orders basing on the submissions thus made.
7. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
The Station House officer, Medchal Police Station/Investigating Officer is directed to verify whether upon investigation and the material collected, Section 386 IPC attracts the case facts. On such investigation, in case if it is found that Section 386 IPC does not attract to the case in question, the Station House Officer, Medchal Police 3 Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.9638 of 2022 Station/Investigating Officer is directed to follow the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 1.
In case Section 386 IPC does not attract, the following directions may be followed:-
(i) The Station House Officer, Medchal Police Station /Investigating Officer shall not effect arrest of the petitioner/Accused without following the procedure established by law.
(ii) The Station House Officer, Medchal Police Station/Investigating Officer, shall adhere to the requirement to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C except under the circumstances mentioned under Sections 41(1) and 41-A (4) Cr.P.C.
(iii) The Station House Officer, Medchal Police Station /Investigating Officer shall not insist upon the personal appearance of the petitioner/Accused during the course of investigation, except where his personal appearance is required.
(iv) In case the personal appearance of the petitioner/Accused is required, the same shall be communicated to him in writing indicating the reasons for which his personal appearance is sought.
(v) However, it is made clear that the Investigation may go on.1
(2014) 8 SCC 273 4 Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.9638 of 2022
(vi) That the petitioner/ Accused shall cooperate with the police during the process of investigation.
8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA Dt.02.11.2022 ysk 5 Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.9638 of 2022 THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9638 OF 2022 Dt.02.11.2022 ysk