Sri K. Jayaram Reddy v. The State of A.P., rep., by its
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 02 Jul 2012
- Bench
- SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 420, 468, 471
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: 02.07.2012 ES
Judgment
Cause title
PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5247 of 2012 Between: Sri K. Jayaram Reddy And … Petitioner
/Accused. The State of A.P., rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, through KPHB Police Station. … Respondent
This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5247 of 2012
ORDER:-
The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. Deputy Commissioner, Kukatpally Circle-14, GHMC, Hyderabad, gave report to the police in this case alleging fabrication of a fake BPS proceedings from that office in relation to Plot No.70, MIG, Dharma Reddy Colony, Phase-II, in the name of the petitioner, in which stilt plus five floors are being constructed.
It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that when the police asked the petitioner to go over to the police station, he addressed a letter informing that he gave his land to a developer in whose favour he executed a General Power of Attorney and that he has no concern with the BPS proceeding.
Simply because the petitioner executed a Power of Attorney Deed in favour of the developer for developing site belonging to him, it will not totally absolve him of the liability, if any, for fabrication of fake BPS proceedings in his name for the said property. Having regard to the allegations in this case, this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Operative part
Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: 02.07.2012 ES
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 420, 468, 471.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 02 Jul 2012. The bench was SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.