DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

SUBJECT

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

NAME OF THE FACULTY

R. BHARATH KUMAR SIR

Name of the Candidate
Roll No. & Semester

M.LALITH KUMAR

Vth SEMESTER,
 2016059

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to our professor, Mr. R. BHARATH KUMAR SIR for
not only providing an opportunity to do this project but also for providing his kind support
and all the necessary documents that were required in order to do a detailed study on the
topic.
BRIEF ABOUT THE JUDGE

M.satyanarayanamurthy was Born on 14th June, 1960, at Machilipatnam in a middleclass

family. Had studies at Machilipatnam up to his graduation. He did his graduation in
Commerce from Andhra JatiyaKalasala, Machilipatnam. Studied law degree in Sir
C.R.Reddy Law College, Eluru, and enrolled as a member on the rolls of the Bar Counsel of
Andhra Pradesh and started practice at Machilipatnam. Was attached to the office of Sri
Yakkala Pandu Ranga Rao, the then Government Pleader, Krishna at Machilipatnam, and
gained exposure to various branches of law. Appointed as Standing Counsel for
Machilipatnam Municipality in the year 1991 and worked as such till his appointment as
District & Sessions Judge, Grade-II, by direct recruitment. Prized M.N.Rao Gold Medal from
A.P. Judicial Academy as best Trainee District Judge for the year 1998.Served as Additional
District Judge, Vizianagaram, Kurnool, Additional Chief Judge, City Small Cause Court,
Hyderabad, Registrar (Management) for 4 months and Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of
A.P., Hyderabad, for a period of 2 years 10 months. Later, served as Principal District Judge,
Guntur, East Godavari at Rajahmundry and again at Guntur till his elevation as Additional
Judge, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and sworn in as such on 23-10-2013. His
wife Smt. M.V.RamanaKumari is also a judicial officer, presently working as Senior Civil
Judge.

Appointed as Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and
the State of Andhra Pradesh and assumed charge as such on the afternoon of 02-03-2016
 1. CASE NAME:G. Yashwanth Reddy Vs. State of A.P. and Ors.

NAME OF THE COURT:HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERBAD

BENCH OF THE COMPOSTION: M .SATYANARYANA MURTHY

SUBJECT: CRIMINAL LAW

FACTS OF THE CASE : Initially The second respondent filed complaint against the
petitioner/A1 and another, alleging that the petitioner borrowed an amount of ` 15,00,000/-
from her for his necessities and executed a promissory note on the even date agreeing to
repay the same with interest at 24% per annum to her or her order on demand. Subsequently
again the petitioner borrowed an amount of ` 15,00,000/- from the complainant for his
necessities and executed another promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest at
24% per annum. In view of the demand made by the second respondent, A2, who is the father
of A1, issued two cheques on 11.03.2016 for a sum of ` 5,00,000/- each, drawn on State Bank
of India, Hyderabad, in favour of the second respondent towards discharge of the debt due by
the petitioner as part payment under two promissory notes. then the cheques were
dishonoured and proceeding were initiated by the court against the petitioner so the petitioner
filled under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the proceedings which were registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
against the petitioner/A1.

ISSUE: WHETHER THE PETITINER CAN BE HELD LIABLE TO PAY ?

REASONING:Under Section 138 of the Act, it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be
prosecuted. In the present case, the appellant is not a drawer of the cheque and she has not
signed the same. A copy of the cheque brought to notice of Supreme Court though contains
name of the appellant and her husband, the fact remains that her husband alone put his
signature. In addition to the same, a bare reading of the complaint as also the affidavit of
examination-in-chief of the complainant and a bare look at the cheque would show that the
appellant has not signed the cheque. Under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, in case of issuance of
cheque from joint accounts, a joint account holder cannot be prosecuted unless the cheque
has been signed by each and every person who is a joint account holder.
CONCLUSION : The court held that She is not liable under literal rule of interpretation,
according sec 7 of the of the act "The maker of a bill of exchange or cheque is called the
'drawer so here she cannot be regarded as drawer and not held liable because she is not
maker of the cheque.

2. CASE NAME:: A. Padmaja vs. State of Telangana and Ors.

CITATION: MANU/HY/0497/2018

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

BENCH COMPOSTION: M.SATYA NARYANA MURTHY

FACTS: The petitioner is a doctor. Respondent has lodged a written report with police
against the petitioner alleging that he took his pregnant wife to Government Hospital and the
petitioner examined his wife and advised them to come to hospital on next day morning with
scanning report and they again came to hospital along with scanning report and the
petitioner admitted her in hospital and informed that an operation will be conducted
tomorrow but the petitioner did not conduct operation; that on 01-01-2015 at morning hours
as his wife suffered labour pains, he took her to hospital and that an operation was done but
due to delay in performing operation by the petitioner from 31-12-2014 to 01-01-2015, the
child was found dead in the womb itself.

The police registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, issued
FIR and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, the police examined as
many as 12 witnesses, recorded their statements under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. and filed
charge sheet having concluded that there is prima facie material to proceed against the
petitioner for the offence. So the petitioner filled petition to quash proceeding.

ISSUE: WHETHER THE PROCEEDING LIABLE TO BE QUASHED

REASONING: The court has taken view from the Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab thatn
the absence of any expert opinion, the prosecution cannot be continued and prayed to quash
the proceedings.

CONCLUSION: under the literal rule of interpretation the criminal petition is accordingly
allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner as there is no expert opinion in this
case.
 3. CASE NAME: C.S. Ravi Vs. M. Jaya And Ors.

NAME OF THE COURT : HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

BENCH OF COMPOSTION : M.SATYANARYANA MURTHY

SUBJECT : CRIMINAL LAW

FACTS OF THE CASE: The petitioner filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C., to recall
P.W. 1 for further cross-examination alleging that the petitioner cross-examined P.W. 1 and
the matter is coming for defence evidence, but on thorough verification it came to the notice
that some questions on material points were not put to the respondent with regard to the
relationship of the respondent with the petitioner factory and also contended that there were
disputes between the petitioner factory and the respondent and it covered by Industrial
Disputes Act. It is also contended that there is no relationship of debtor and creditor and
question of issuing cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not
arise and to put certain questions, the witness has to be recalled and prayed to allow the
petition.

ISSUE : whether trial court has to specify reason while dismissing the plea under first part of
section 311 of the CR.P.C?

REASONING: In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shivkumar Yadav and another, the
court had given some guidelines whenthe power under Section 311*Cr.PC can be exercised
where The trialCourt as well as the High Court rejected the reasons for recall of the witnesses
and The Court has to keep in mind not only the need for giving fair opportunity to the
accused but also the need for ensuring that the victim of the crime is not unduly harassed. On
the base of principal stated above in the present case, the trial Court did not record any
reasons except holding that the Court can take judicial notice of such facts.

CONCLUSION: By strict rule of interpreting the provision the power to receive evidence
in exercise of Section 311 of the Code could be exercised "even if evidence on both sides is
closed” . The order of the trial Court is erroneous and not inconsonance with the power
conferred on the Court under Section 311 Cr.PC. Therefore, the order passed by the trial
Court is liable to be set aside.
CASE NAME: Syed Irshad Hussain Vs.The State of A.P.
NAME OF THE COURT: High court of judicature, Hyderabad

BENCH OF COMPOSTION: M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

SUJECT: criminal law

FACTS: petitioners along with others were found transporting 440 Kgs of Ganja in 220
packets worth Rs. 22,00,000/- on Ashok Leyland Van bearing from Balimela to Rajahmundry
and during vehicle check, 220 packets of Ganja was found in the body of the lorry in 22 bags
in the middle of paddy bags. After following the necessary procedure, police seized the
contraband after drawing samples therefrom under the cover of mediators report, arrested the
accused and remanded them to judicial custody.
ISSUE: whether the petitioners who were following the truck in which ganja was found, will
entitled to get bail or not?

REASONING: since there was a commericial quantity of ganja was found in this case,
accused 4 and 6 were not entitled to get bail. Moreover they were following the truck in
which ganja was found. Their act attracts the provision of section 20 (ii)(b) of ndps act.
According to crpc, bail can be granted for the offences punishable less than five years. If the
court believes that the accused would not commit crime after granting the bail then it can
grant bail. Here the accused persons are not entitle to bail.

CONCLUSION: here strict rule applied by the court and the application of bail was rejected.
Because the main aim of NDPS act was to prevent

CASE NAME :Sangaraju Sandeep Kumar Raju and Ors. vs. State of A.P. and Ors.

CITATION: MANU/HY/0490/2018

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

BENCH COMPOSTION: M.SATYA NARYANA MURTHY

FACTS: The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are son and father, whereas respondent No. 2 is the
defacto complainant and father-in-law of accused No. 1. The respondent No. 2 is the
complainant, who filed a private complaint under Section 190 of Cr.P.C alleging that he is
working as Secretary in Agricultural Market Committee, Madanapalli and her daughter K.
Alekya was married to the petitioner No. 1 /accused No. 1 . At the time of marriage, on the
demand made by accused Nos. 1 and 2 and their family members, he gave dowry and other
valuables. After the marriage, his daughter lived in her in-lawshouse. Later, for sometime she
joined her husband in America in November, 2015. After sometime, as she was unable to
bear the harassment of her husband and her in-laws, came back to India. Some panchayats
were held and in the panchayat, accused No. 2 and other attacked her. Therefore, daughter of
complainant gave complaint in Mahila Police Station, Kadapa, and the same was registered
as Crime.

The present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the
ground that none of the allegations made against the petitioners do not attract the offences
punishable under Sections 465, 471 and 193 of I.P.C and filing of private complaint, which
was referred to police by exercising power under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. is a serious
illegality and that in view of bar under Section 23 of Right to Information Act filing of
private complaint and reference to the police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and taking up
investigation by the police is an illegality and sought to quash the proceedings against the
petitioners.

ISSUES: (1) Whether Section 23 of Right to Information Act bars taking cognizance of the
offence punishable under Sections 465, 471 and 193 of I.P.C.? If so, the proceedings against
the petitioners are liable to be quashed?

REASONING: The power to forbid a criminal proceeding at the stage of investigation is

even more rare. a criminal investigation, unless tainted by clear mala fides, should not be
foreclosed by a court of law.

CONCLUSION: under the strict rule of interpretation, If these principles are applied to the
present facts of the case, this Court cannot exercise such power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C
even the trail court rejected the petition without reasonable cause and quash the proceedings
at this stage. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
CASE NAME : J. Muralidhar Goud vs. The State of Telangana

CITATION: MANU/HY/0441/2018

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

BENCH COMPOSTION: M.SATYANARYANA MURTHY

FACTS: the petitioner being the sole accused filed for C.B.I. Cases under Section 239
Cr.P.C., alleging that, while the petitioner was discharging his official duties as Medical
Superintendent of Railway Poly Clinic, accepted a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as illegal
gratification other than legal remuneration and as such he committed offences punishable
under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act. The petitioner was served with the copies of
the documents a required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and such documents and statements do
not disclose any offence committed by the petitioner much less the offences alleged to have
been committed by him under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act. It is also contended
that the charge sheet does not disclose any official favour that was pending with the petitioner
as alleged by the complainant in his complaint and the statements of various witnesses
recorded by the Investigating Officer to substantiate the alleged offences committed by this
petitioner.

ISSUE: (i) Whether Sri K.A.A. Salam, Inspector of Police, Investigating Officer (LW-20)
and Sri Mohd. Jaffer, Inspector of Police, Trap Laying Officer (LW-17), who are working on
deputation and discharging their duties in C.B.I. are competent to investigate If not, whether
the petitioner is liable to be discharged for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)
r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act?

REASONING:

the incompetency of the police officer to conduct investigation would not vitiate the
proceedings, unless such investigation caused any prejudice to the petitioner/accused and
therefore, the least prejudice was neither pleaded before the Trial Court nor before this Court
in the petition filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and in the revision filed under Section 397
Cr.P.C. Therefore, in the absence of any prejudice to the petitioner/accused and prima facie
proof of it on account of incompetency of the Investigating Officers, the petitioner/accuse
cannot be discharged for the offences.
CONCLUSION:

Under the strict rule interpretation the plea was not made before the court or before thee trial
court so the alleged incompetency of the persons investigated into the offences cannot be
treated as a ground to find the petitioner not guilty even at the end of trial, unless the
petitioner is able to establish that, on account of such investigation by incompetent officer,
prejudice or miscarriage of justice is elicited and such question is only a question of fact to be
decided after trial. Therefore, on the ground of incompetency the petition was dismissed.

CASE NAME: Ayub Khan and Ors. vs. The State of Telangana (30.10.2018 - HYHC) :

CITATION: MANU/HY/0337/2018

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE

BENCH COMPOSTION:M.SATYA NARYANA MURTHY

FACTS: Telangana State filed an application under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. to cancel the
bail and set aside the order passed on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 is a gangster/rowdy
sheeter involved in 68 cases approximately, No witnesses and complainants are dare enough
to depose evidence against the petitioner No. 1 and in most of the cases, witnesses turned
hostile due to his brutal behaviour and many a times he tried to attack the police with deadly
weapons. It is further contended that the petitioners No. 1/accused No. 1 was also convicted
for life imprisonment in a sensational murder case of practicing advocate MannanGhouri and
while he was in jail, he hatched a plan and obtained fake passport. The petitioners created
fake passports to leave the country and if the petitioners are let off on bail there is every
possibility of fleeing from country and possibility of creating panic in the society. Therefore,
requested to cancel the bail setting aside the order of suspension of substantive sentence and
to direct them to surrender before the police within specific date fixed by the Court

ISSUES: Whether the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 misused the liberty granted to them while on
bail, suspending substantive sentence of imprisonment if so, whether the bail granted to the
petitioners is liable to be recalled/cancelled?
REASONING: In view of the Full Bench Judgment of Apex Court in "Pampapathy v. State
of Mysore" and the judgment of this Court rendered in "P. Kalpana v. State of Telangana"
there is eminent threat to the society in the event the bail is not cancelled and in the public
interest, such bail can be cancelled by exercising power under Section 389 (1) proviso (ii) of
Cr.P.C.

CONCLUSION: under strict rule of interpretation Even if the contention of the petitioner
No. 1 is accepted that he did not involve in any criminal case post conviction and after his
release on bail , still he is a man having lot of criminal background and created a fake
passports where he became threat to the society. So the Court had canceled the bail granted
to maintain public peace and tranquility and to protect the innocent public from the hands of
such hardcore criminal allegedly

CASE NAME:: Y. Naga Satish vs. State of Telangana and ors.

CITATION: MANU/HY/0392/2018

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

BENCH COMPOSTION:M.SATYA NARYNA MURTHY

FACTS: The petitioner lent a sum of Rs. 1.65 crores to the accused/respondent No. 2. He
promised to repay the said amount, but he did not do so. Subsequently, he offered to sell his
land to the petitioner and both entered into an agreement, dated 16.2.2015, for sale of his land
for a sale consideration of Rs. 12.00 crores. The petitioner paid total amount of Rs. 2.15
crores to the accused on 16.2.2015 under the said agreement of sale. Subsequently, the
petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 5.76 crores to respondent No. 2/accused by way of cheques and
the same were honoured. Thus, he paid total consideration of Rs. 7.91 crores to the accused
by way of cheques drawn on Axis Bank.

Instead of executing sale deed conveying the property, on 15.9.2015, respondent No. 2 came
to the petitioner's house along with his associates and demanded payment of higher amount
as consideration for the transaction and snatched the papers from the hands of the petitioner
and obtained signatures of the petitioner on two letters forcibly. After the incident, a written
report was lodged with the police, who registered the aforesaid crime and filed final report
under Section 173 Cr.P.C. closing the case due to "lack of evidence," after serving notice on
the petitioner herein. After receipt of notice, the petitioner filed a protest petition challenging
the final report filed by the police reiterating the allegations made in the report lodged with
the police, more particularly, regarding payment of amount to a tune of Rs. 7.91 crores and
also alleged that respondent No. 2 threw away the photostat copies of the documents, which
he snatched away from the possession of the petitioner, and also threatened to take whatever
action he likes and on the strength of those documents, the petitioner requested the Magistrate
to take cognizance of the matter and to try the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420, 341 and 506 IPC.

ISSUE:

Whether the order is vitiated by any illegality or irregularity?, if so, whether the order passed
in Criminal Revision Petition is liable to be quashed?

REASONING: under Section 397 Cr.P.C, the Court cannot appreciate the evidence on
record, as no piece of substantive evidence is available at the stage of taking cognizance.

The learned Sessions Judge, after analyzing every aspect based on material, rightly concluded
that the petitioner failed to establish prima facie that respondent No. 2 committed the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 341 and 506 IPC and consequently, affirmed
the order passed by the Magistrate. As the well reasoned order cannot be reversed by
exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the order passed by the Court below is upheld
and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order, as this Court finds no legal
infirmity warranting interference of this Court by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

CONCLUSION: Under the strict rule of interpretation, there is no grounds to interfere with
the order of Criminal Revision Petition so , consequently, the criminal petition is liable to be
dismissed under the above reason

CASE NAME: JalliRadha Krishna vs. State of A.P.

CITATION: MANU/AP/0897/2017

NAME OF THE COURT:

BENCH COMPOSTION - M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

FACTS: The facts of the case that the accused went to the house of P.Ws. 1 & 2 and
KalluriMuthaiah (deceased) and took away deceased offering feast, went to their fields, had
toddy at their fields. After that, the accused invited him for dinner in his house, then the
accused and he had dinner in the house of the accused. At that time, he enquired about the
wife of the accused repeatedly. Further, it is alleged that deceased used to visit the house of
the accused frequently in this absence. On repeated enquiry, the accused suspected deceased
might have developed illicit intimacy with his wife and decided to do away the life of him.
Then, on the same day after dinner, the accused took spade which was available in the house
and bet on his head with butt of axe. On that, the accused under the impression that he died,
left him in the house by hiding axe and spade in the backyard of the house. During the early
hours, wife of the accused found deceased in pool of blood and struggling for life.
Thereupon, she went to the house of P.W.4 and informed then however the matter came to
know to L.Ws 1 to 3 and others and where they questioned the accused about the incident
and the accused confessed that he had committed the offence, as deceased had illicit
relationship with his wife. Then deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Chintoor and
after first aid, he was shifted to Government hospital where he succumbed to injuries
investigated the matter and case was registered and started investigation

ISSUE:

1. "Whether the accused/appellant caused injuries on the body of deceased, which lead to his
death after a day. If so,whether the accused/appellant is liable for punishment for the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC, for causing death.

REASONING:

"When there was a fight between parties not pre-meditated and the incident occurred at spur
of moment following heated arguments and altercations between parties, such incident could
be the result of grave and sudden provocation without any intention in mind of accused to
commit murder of deceased. The accused were not aware that injuries caused by them were
sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the case falls under
Exceptions 1 and 4 of Section 300 of IPC and held guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 304 Part-I of IPC."

CONCLUSION: under the strict rule interpretion the court has to prove the malafide
intention of the partied where the prosecution proved that the accused caused injuries on the
vital parts of the body of deceased, which lead to his death, but failed to establish intention
to kill him. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the Court below for the offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC is set-aside, converting the conviction of the accused from Section
302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC.

CASE NAME: V. Radhakrishna and Ors. vs. Alla Rama Krishna Reddy and Ors.

CITATION: MANU/HY/0390/2018

NAME OF THE COURT – HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

BENCH COMPOSTION:M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

FACTS: Complainant before the Magistrate, he is the MLA, Mangalagiri Constituency in

Guntur District being the member of YSR Congress Party filed private complaint under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 500
and 501 of I.P.C. alleging that he has been serving the poor and down trodden in his
constituency and is well known for his loyalty to the YSR Congress Party and has been
advancing the interests, policies and programmes of YSR Congress Party in his constituency
and also in Andhra Pradesh as a MLA of YSR Congress Party and active party functionary,
being aggrieved by the defamatory, derogatory' and venomous news which is lacking of
truth, published by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 7 in Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily on
15.05.2017 and on 16.05.2017

ISSUE:

REASONING: State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal MANU/SC/0115/1992 : (1992 Supp (1) SCC
335 : (AIR 1992 SC 604) the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court
under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR.
The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be
followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint:

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the
accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an
order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

CONCLUSION:

Under the strict rule of interpretation , the defamation should have the truth , buthere there is
lack of truth where he published the same with ulterior motive to exact revenge so the court
held him liable.

CASE NAME :SamalaDhanaLaxmi vs. The State of Telangana and Ors.

CITATION: MANU/AP/0089/2016
NAME OF THE COURT:HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

BENCH COMPOSTION : M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

FACTS: The petitioner submits that her husband was carrying on kirana business and he
had obtained a trade licence and had registered himself as a dealer with the Commercial Tax
Department in the year 2010, though he possessed a valid trade licence, and registration with
the Commercial Tax Department, for carrying on business in black jaggery, respondents 5
and 6 had registered false cases against him as her husband did not comply with their illegal
demand and they registered against him for offences under Section 34(e) read with Section
13(1)(f) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

A Writ of habeas corpus is sought by the petitioner, for the release of her husband Sri Samala
Hari Prasad from illegal custody pursuant to the order of detention passed under Section
3(1) & (2) read with Section 2(a) and (b) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and
Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

ISSUE:

whether a single incident of possession of black jaggery and alum, for its use as raw material
in the manufacture of I.D. liquor, would suffice to detain a person in preventive custody?

REASONING: The satisfaction of the detaining authority, in the order of detention that the
detune had repeatedly involved himself in activities of illegal possession and transportation of
black jaggery and alum, meant for I.D. liquor (gudumba), is not based on the material placed
before her, and has been arrived at on the basis of non-existent material. The order of
detention suffers from non-application of mind, and necessitates being set aside on this
ground alone.

CONCLUSION: under the strict rule , the intention of the party should be proved but here
the respondent failed to prove the mallfide intention so, the order liable to be set aside. The
Writ Petition is allowed, the order of detention is set aside, and the detenu shall be set at
liberty forthwith provided he is not required to be kept in custody in connection with any
other case/cases registered against him

CASE NAME: PENDYALASREENADH VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

CITATION : 2014) 8 SCC 273

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The case of the prosecution in brief is that at the time of betrothal function, the petitioner
informed the de facto complainant and her parents that he studied in Germany and possessed
huge properties at Bangalore and getting income of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month; that having
been satisfied with the financial condition of the petitioner, the parents of the de facto
complainant performed the marriage of the petitioner and the de facto complainant by
spending huge amounts beyond their financial capacity on 15-02-2017; that later, the de facto
complainant joined the petitioner to lead conjugal life at Chintalapalem on 18-02-2017 and
sometime thereafter, they lived in Bangalore; that during the stay both at Chintalapalem and
Bangalore, the petitioner used to harass the de facto complainant for her failure to meet the
illegal demand of additional dowry, beat her and abuse her in filthy language; that on 18-06-
2017, the petitioner and the de facto complainant went to Germany and there they stayed in
the house of one Karthik who is friend of the petitioner; that on suspicion, when the de facto
complainant questioned the petitioner about his education, he picked up quarrel with her; that
on 17-07-2017, they came back to India; that on 18-07-2017, the petitioner went to Bangalore
leaving the de facto complainant and did not come back and that on 21-07-2017 when the
parents and relatives of the de facto complainant went to Bangalore, they came to know that
the petitioner did not pursue his studies in Germany and cheated them.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier bail petition filed by the petitioner
was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 31-10-2017 in Criminal Petition No. 10074 of
2017 directing the police to follow the provisions of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and the guidelines
issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 1and that the petitioner now is
suffering from severe backache and his condition is required to be reviewed and therefore
requested this Court to grant pre-arrest bail to him

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Whether pre arrest bail can be granted to the accused?

REASONING:

1
The prime requirement to grant pre-arrest bail is that the Court has to record its satisfaction
that there is no prima facie material against the petitioner to conclude that he committed the
above offences. When this Court dismissed the earlier petition filed by the petitioner holding
that there is prima facie material against him to proceed with the investigation, this Court
now cannot come to a different conclusion or substitute its conclusion with the earlier
conclusion. Hence, this Court has no option except to concur with the conclusion arrived .

CONCLUSION:

Following the Strict rule of interpretation court found no ground to grant pre-arrest bail to the
petitioner. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed.

CASE NAME: M.P. TejBabu vs. State of Telangana and Ors. (21.12.2016 - HYHC) :

CITATION:MANU/AP/1042/2016

NAME OF THE COURT:HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

BENCH COMPOSTION:M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

FACTS: The present petition is filed to quash the proceedings on various grounds and
mainly contending that the respondent No. 2 is a pensioner, apart from it she is receiving Rs.
3,50,000/- as rents every month being credited to her account. Thus, she possessed substantial
amount of more than Rs. 2 crores in her account besides possessing gold and other jewellery.

ISSUES:

Whether the civil dispute is converted into criminal litigation abusing the process of the
Court, if so, whether the are liable to be quashed?

REASONING: if the FIR does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the
Court would be justified in quashing the investigation on the basis of the information as laid
or received.

CONCLUSION: under the literal rule, the allegation made in the complaint appears to be
directly relating to civil dispute since the petitioner is admittedly in possession of the property
and the respondent No. 2 requested the police to redeliver the property after evicting the
petitioner, in such case the remedy available to her is to approach the competent civil Court
to redress her grievance, instead of approaching the competent civil Court she resorted to
criminal prosecution against her son-petitioner and it appears that on the one hand she
prevented the police from interfering in civil litigation and on the other hand invited their
interference in the civil litigation though she is conscious that the litigation is purely civil in
nature. As such interference of the police in civil disputes would amount to abuse of process
of the Court. Consequently, the respondent No. 2, at best, is entitled to redress her grievance
before competent civil Court but not by approaching the police. Hence, I find no substance in
the arguments of the respondent No. 2, consequently the proceedings are liable to be quashed
and the petition is liable to be allowed.

CASE NAME :K. Narasinga Rao vs. K. Neeraja (01.06.2015 - HYHC) :

CITATION: MANU/AP/0267/2015

NAME OF THE COURT:High Court of judicature

BENCH COMPOSTION:

FACTS: The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed as per
Hindu rites on 22-02-1996 and when petition filed by the appellant husband against the order
passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, dismissing his petition seeking dissolution of
marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petition is filed by
the petitioner-wife against the respondent-husband under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 for grant of Rs. 25,00,000/- towards her permanent alimony and Rs. 20,00,000/- to
Kumari K. Navya, (the daughter of the petitioner and the respondent), towards her
maintenance, education and marriage expenses.

ISSUE: whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of permanent alimony?

REASONING: In thecase of K. Srinivasa Rao v. D.A. Deepa ,filing of false criminal cases
by the wife may be a ground to grant the husband divorce, it is not a ground to deny her
permanent alimony.
CONCLUSION: under the literal rule of above reason the court directed for the permanent
alimony, payable by the respondent to the petitioner in terms of the order . it shall be secured
by way of a charge over the retrial/terminal benefits of the respondent. The charge are
however be limited only to such of those retrial benefits for which there is no statutory
prohibition for creation of a charge or attachment.

CASE NAME: Shaik Abdul Azeem and Ors. vs. The State of A.P. and Ors.

CITATION:MANU/AP/0004/2017

NAME OF THE COURT:High Court of judicature

BENCH COMPOSTION:

FACTS: wife of the petitioner allegedly lodged a complaint under Section 498-A of IPC &
Sections 3, 4& 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. But the police neither registered any crime nor
issued any F.I.R against the petitioner. But, still, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with the above crime where criminal petitions are filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C to enlarge the petitioners on bail, apprehending their arrest in connection with
unnumbered crime on the file of Women Police Station, Kadapa.

REASONING: under Section 438 of Code convicted for the offence in respect of which he
seeks bail. The applicant must show that he has "reason to believe" that he may be arrested in
a non-bailable offence. Use of the expression "reason to believe" shows that the belief that
the applicant may be arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere "fear" is not
"belief" for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of
vague apprehension that someone is going to make an accusation against him in pursuance of
which he may be arrested. Grounds on which the belief of the applicant is based that he may
be arrested in non-bailable offences must be capable of being examined. If an application is
made to the High Court or the Court of Session, it is for the court concerned to decide
whether a case has been made out for granting of the relief sought

CONCLUSION: the court did not found any basis for apprehension of arrest of the
petitioners in connection with the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC &
Sections 3,4& 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of Women Police Station, Kadapa.
Therefore, all the three criminal petitions are dismissed,
CASE NAME: AngothRenuka vs. The State of Telangana and Ors.

CITATION: MANU/AP/0090/2016

NAME OF THE COURT:High Court of judicature

BENCH COMPOSTION:

FACTS: The detenu was repeatedly involved in the activities of possession and sale of
illicitly distilled liquor in contravention of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995; he was
indulging in lawless activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and which is
dangerous to life and public health; he was satisfied, from the material placed before him, of
the Prohibition and Excise Station, Medak that the detenu was a "bootlegger" as defined in
Section 2(b) of Act 1 of 1986; recourse to normal legal procedure would involve more time,
and not be an effective deterrent to prevent the detenu from indulging in further prejudicial
activities; with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to public
order and health, the provisions of Act 1 of 1986 was required to be invoked to detain the
detenu who was on bail; and he should be lodged at Central Prison, Cherlapally from the date
of service of the order of detention and A Writ of habeas corpus is sought by the wife of the
detenu-Sri Angoth Shankar to declare the order of detention dated 19.10.2015, passed under
Section 3(1) read with Section 2(a) & (b) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and
Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, "Act 1 of 1986") as being arbitrary and illegal.

ISSUE: WHETHER IT IS VALID TO CANCEL THE DETENTION ON THE SOLE

GROUND OF ARBITRATOR?

REASONING: As the order of detention is liable to be set aside on grounds that the orders
granting bail to the detenu were not placed before the detaining authority when he passed the
order of detention, and copies of the bail orders were not furnished to the detenu along with
the grounds of detention which resulted in the denial of his right to make an effective
representation, it is unnecessary for us to examine whether the order of detention should also
be set aside for the other grounds. it is well settled that even if one of the grounds or reasons,
which led to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, is non-existent or
misconceived or irrelevant, the order of detention would be rendered invalid

CONCLUSION: under the strict rule , the detention order, and the continued detention of
the detenu, stand vitiated for the failure of the detaining authority to consider the orders
whereby bail was granted to the detenu, and in not furnishing copies thereof to the detenu
along with the grounds of detention respectively. The Writ Petition is allowed, the order of
detention is set aside.

CASE NAME: s: K. Shanthan Kumar vs. State of Telangana (19.12.2016 - HYHC) :

CITATION: MANU/AP/1145/2016

NAME OF THE COURT: High Court of judicature

BENCH COMPOSTION :

FACTS: K. Santhan Kumar, who received a cheque from Life Insurance Corporation of
India has credited the same in personal account of the second respondent Karnataka Ban in
furtherance of evil desire, K. Santhan Kumar forged his signatures and withdraw money of
Rs. 4,00,000/- from his account. As a result he was served notice for repayment of loan
amount with interest accrued thereon. Thus, these petitioners hatched a plan and withdraw the
amount. the plan to withdraw money from Metlife India Insurance Corporation Limited and
succeeded in their plan and totally withdrawn an amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- by submitting
false, fabricate and forged documents. Thus, these petitioners committed a serious offence.
The present criminal petitions, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are
filed to quash the proceedings registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable
under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

REASONING: The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised and cannot
be exercised in various perspective pronouncements of the Apex Court. The leading case on
this aspect is STATE OF HARAYANA V. BHAJANLAL wherein the Apex Court laid down
the following seven guidelines:

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the
accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an
order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
CONCLUSION:

Under the strict rule, the proceedings in Saifabad Police Station against petitioners are
quashed while declining to quash the proceedings against K. Shanthan Kumar, petitioner no.1
under section 439 of cr.pc

CASE NAME: DasariRadha Krishna Murthy and Ors. vs. KinneraKrishnaiah and Ors.

CITATION: : MANU/AP/0441/2017

NAME OF THE COURT:High Court of judicature

BENCH COMPOSTION :

FACTS: One K. Krishnaiah filed a private complaint before the Magistrate against the
petitioners herein and accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 6(3)(a) of
Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 406 read with 34 of I.P.C. alleging that the
marriage of his daughter Sai Sindhu was performed with accused No. 1 according to Hindu
rites and customs and their marriage was registered with registration and a certificate was
also issued to that effect on 28.05.2011. Where present criminal petition is filed under
Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings on the file of Special
Mobile Magistrate of First Class for the offences punishable under Section 406 read with 34
of Indian Penal Code and under Section 6(3)(a) of Dowry Prohibition Act.

REASONING: R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0086/1960 : AIR 1960 SC 866,

the Apex Court held as follows:

(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to

the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would
secure the ends of justice.

(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance
of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction.
(iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and

(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence
adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

CONCLUSION: under the strict rule of interpretion it constitutes an offence. The Court
cannot interfere except when the Court comes to a conclusion that it is an outcome of abuse
of process of law. But at this stage, it is difficult for the court to conclude that the present
complaint was filed as an abuse of process of law. Thus, the limited jurisdiction under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised only in exceptional circumstances.

CASE NAME: Preetesh Kumar vs. State of Telangana and Ors

CITATION:MANU/AP/0298/2017

NAME OF THE COURT:High Court of judicature

BENCH COMPOSTION :

FACTS: The petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings passed by
the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge whereby confirmed the order of the IX
Special Magistrate Court. The petitioner is the accused on the file of the IX Special
Magistrate Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881. The 2nd respondent is the complainant and filed a private complaint against the
petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, contending that
there is a legally enforceable debt and that the cheque was issued towards discharge of legally
enforceable debt, which was dishonoured on presentation. Thereafter, he issued notice in
compliance of Section 138 of the Act demanding the petitioner/accused to pay the amount
covered by cheque. But, the accused failed to pay the same. Thereby, he filed the complaint
before the trial Court.

The complaint is that one Dwaraka Prasad Agarwal, father of the accused, who is no other
than maternal uncle of the complainant requested for financial assistance for his business
needs and he promised to repay the amount within six months to the complainant.
Accordingly, the complainant advanced an amount of Rs. 74,50,000/- between March and
June, 2013 i.e., within a span of four months to the accused. But, the accused failed to repay
the same even after expiry of six months as agreed. Despite demands by the complainant, the
petitioner/accused did not repay the same and issued postdatedtowards part payment to clear
debt due and Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was also executed by the father of the
accused on 14.2.2014. Thus, the basis for the claim is Memorandum of Understanding, which
is unstamped and unregistered. Since the claim of the 2nd respondent/complainant is based
on Memorandum of Understanding, the petitioner/accused filed a petition before the Special
Magistrate under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, to impound the Memorandum of
Understanding.

REASONING: Court highlighted the words "for any purpose whatsoever" and concluded
that the unregistered deed of sale was an instrument and it requires payment of stamp duty
applicable to a deed of conveyance. Adequate stamp duty admittedly was not paid. Therefore,
the Court is empowered to pass an order in terms of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act since
the document was inadmissible in evidence and even for the collateral purpose and observed
that 'the Parliament has, in Section 35 of the Act, advisedly used the words "for any purpose
whatsoever". Thus, the purpose for which a document is sought to be admitted in evidence or
the extent thereof would not be a relevant factor for not invoking the provisions and therefore
such document cannot be admitted in evidence and further drawn attention of this Court.

CONCLUSION: The interpretation to the provisions of the Stamp Act, as laid down by the
apex Court in the judgments referred supra, cannot be applied to the proceedings in a criminal
case, in view of exemption clauses contained in proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of Section 33
and proviso (d) of Section 35 of the Stamp Act. Therefore, the principles laid down in the
judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner have no relevance to the present
facts and when the Special Magistrate and the Revisional Courts have exercised their
discretion under Sections 33(2) proviso (a) and 35 proviso (d), this Court cannot interfere
with such orders while exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Section 482
Cr.P.C., confers inherent power on the High Court being the highest Court of the State only
for limited purpose of enforcing the orders passed under the Code, to prevent abuse of
process of the Court and to meet the ends of justice in view of the limited power conferred on
it, unless the order passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the revisional Court is prima
facie erroneous and the Court cannot interfere by exercising inherent power under Section
482 Cr.P.C.
Therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court in exercising discretion
that conferred on the Courts below to set aside the same, consequently, persuaded by the law
laid down by Calcutta High Court in as early as in 1950 and in the latter judgment of the
Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh High Courts and interpreting the provisions under Sections
33 and 35 of the Stamp Actit view that the orders passed by exercising jurisdiction under
Section 397 Cr.P.C., are free from any illegality and legal infirmity calling for interference of
this Court, while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, petition is devoid of
merits and liable to be dismissed. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed at the stage
of admission.

CASE NAME: GogireddyAnjireddy vs. State of A.P. and Ors.

CITATION:MANU/AP/0082/2017

NAME OF THE COURT:High Court of judicature

BENCH COMPOSTION:

FACTS: This petition is filed under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted
in favour of respondents A. 1 to 6 and A. 8 by I Additional Junior Civil Judge for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 324 and 509 read with 149 IPC on various
grounds viz., (1) the offences referred to above are non-bailable and without notice to the the
petition was disposed of by the Magistrate, granting bail to the accused before it.

2) That while granting bail to the accused, the Magistrate came to the specific conclusion that
a false case was foisted against them;

3) That after enlarging the petitioners on bail, when they started threatening the petitioner
herein, he lodged a complaint before the police complaining threats and a copy of which is
filed before this Court, but no crime is registered so far.

Issue: whether bail can be cancelled on the following grounds?

REASONING: The Magistrate without issuing notice to the Assistant Public Prosecutor as
required under proviso 4 to sub-section (1) of Section 437 Cr.P.C., which is mandatory, a
specific finding has been recorded by the trial court that the case is falsely foisted against the
accused and the intervening circumstances like threatening the petitioner herein with dire
consequences after obtaining the bail, I deem it appropriate to cancel the bail, by exercising
the power under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C

CONCLUSION: under the strict rule on interpretation this petition is allowed cancelling the
bail granted to the respondents Crime passed to commit the respondents to prison and
complete the trial. However, liberty is given to the respondents herein to move an
appropriate application before the Court of Sessions Court for grant of bail.

CASE NAME: Mannam Ravi Kumar vs. State of A.P. and Ors.

CITATION:MANU/AP/0278/2018

NAME OF THE COURT:High Court of judicature

BENCH COMPOSTION : M.SATYA NARYANA MURTHY

FACTS: The present criminal petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is filed by the petitioner challenging the order pending. The 2nd respondent
filed a complaint against the petitioner under offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and after full fledged trial, the learned Magistrate find the
petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act,
convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine
of ` 12,89,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, filed an appeal along with a petition for interim
suspension of the execution of sentence under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. the learned Sessions
Judge while suspending the sentence directed the petitioner to deposit 1/4th of the cheque
amount within two weeks from the date, besides other conditions. Aggrieved thereby, the
present criminal petition is filed modify the order of direction to deposit 1/4th of the fine
amount on the ground that the 2nd respondent - complainant is a finance company, having its
branches all over India and obtained mortgage of the property besides obtaining cheques as
security for due payment of the amount and the appellate court, without appreciating the
contentions. directing the petitioner to deposit 1/4th of the cheque amount, the court has to
take into consideration various attending circumstances to safeguard the interest of both the
parties, but the court failed to consider various contentions raised by the petitioner, passed the
impugned order erroneously and prayed to set aside the direction to deposit 1/4th of the
cheque amount.

ISSUE: whether the court is competent to award compensation?

REASONING: When a Court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence including a sentence

of death of which fine forms a part, the Court may, when passing judgment order the whole
or any part of the fine recovered to be applied in defraying the expenses properly incurred in
the prosecution; in the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused
by the offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by such
person in a Civil Court. Therefore, imposition of fine and direction to pay fine amount of `
12,89,000/- towards compensation to the 2nd respondent would clearly fall under Section
357(1) Cr.P.C

CONCLUSION: under the literal rule , the court interpreted, the order passed by the trial
court would fall under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. and direction issued by the appellate court to
deposit 1/4th of the cheque amount is not arbitrary, since the court is competent to impose
such condition as the court deems fit while deciding a petition under Section 389 Cr.P.C. to
suspend the substantive sentence

CASE NAME: Om Prakash Oza and Ors. vs. State of Telangana (02.04.2018 - HYHC) :

CITATION: MANU/AP/0214/2018

NAME OF THE COURT:High Court of judicature

BENCH COMPOSTION: m.satya naryana murthy

FACTS: the material available on record discloses that the property originally belongs to Sri
GuttallaVeeranna Trust and the same was purchased by the petitioners from accused Nos. 1
to 3 without knowledge of the defective title. When the petitioners are not aware of the
defective title, they are not liable to be prosecuted. So therefore the present petition is filed
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail to
the -accused Nos. 4 to 7 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471,
448 and 427 read with Section 120-B of IPC.
ISSUES: whether the petitioner should be granted with the anticipatory bail?

REASONING: when a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership

thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has
cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to
part with the sale consideration.

CONCLUSION: applying the above principle and by interpreting the strict rule , the Police
Station is directed to release the accused Nos. 4 to 7 on bail in the event of their arrest on
condition of the petitioners executing each a personal bound for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to his satisfaction. Further,
on such release, the petitioners shall abide by the conditions mentioned under Section 438(2)
Cr.P.C. as under:

(i) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and
when required.

(ii) The petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to
any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) The petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

CASE NAME: Kakani Goverdhan Reddy vs. The State of A.P. (07.03.2017 - HYHC) :

CITATION: MANU/AP/0643/2017

NAME OF THE COURT: High Court of judicature

BENCH COMPOSTION:

FACTS: This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code for
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in relation to Crime it apprehending his arrest for
the offences punishable under Sections 120b, 468, 469 471, 506 IPC and Sections 54 & 71 of
Information Technology Act. The de facto complainant lodged a complaint dated 28.12.2016
with the Station House Officer making serious allegations against the petitioner mainly
alleging that the petitioner along with others hatched a conspiracy to defame him in the
public view, feeling insecure about his political survival in the near future. As a part of the
conspiracy the petitioner started making false allegations against the de facto complainant
through print and electronic media and the petitioner conducted press conference on
23.12.2016 in Nellore and distributed certain documents to the representatives of press
alleging that the de facto complainant is holding large extent of land in Malaysia, one power
project in Thailand, and holding millions of dollars in Singapore and Hongkong bank
accounts of those countries. the petitioner created all those fake documents and fabricated
them with a mala fide intention to criminally intimidate the de facto complainant. Further, the
petitioner has forged the signature of de facto complainant in certain documents distributed
by him with an intention to blackmail the de facto complainant for gain of political survival
in the near future. It is stated in the complaint that the petitioner fabricated a document as if
the de facto complainant had travelled to Malaysia on 13.09.2003 and further the petitioner
has forged the immigration stamp of Government of Malaysia. The de facto complainant
submitted in the complaint that he did not travel to Malaysia on such date and forgery of
immigration stamp of Government of Malaysia is a matter of serious concern.

ISSUE: "whether the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory/pre-arrest bail?

REASONING:. forgery of documents including affixture of seals of foreign countries

including forgery of immigration stamp of Government of Malaysia is a serious offence
which not only affects the reputation of the country but also creates an impression in the
minds of general public that anything can be created to malign anyway. Apart from that, the
petitioner being a political leader and Member of Legislative Assembly may not however flee
from justice. But, possibilities of interfering with the investigation and threatening the
witnesses in the event of his enlargement on anticipatory bail cannot be ruled out, more
particularly, because of his criminal background which the learned Public Prosecutor for the
State of Andhra Pradesh pointed out and mentioned in the earlier paragraphs. There is also a
possibility of committing similar offences while on bail, in view of his previous criminal
background

CONCLUSION: under the literal rule the court held that there is no ground to enlarge the
petitioner granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in relation to
Crime on the file of Nellore Rural Police Station apprehending his arrest for the offences
punishable under Sections 120b, 468, 469 471, 506 IPC and Sections 54 & 71 of Information
Technology Act and consequently, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed