K.V.Anjaneyulu v. Bonagiri Ravinder & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
THE HONOURABALE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Criminal Petition No.1550 of 2009 Between: K.V.Anjaneyulu … Petitioner
Bonagiri Ravinder and another … Respondents
THE HONOURABALE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Criminal Petition No.1550 of 2009
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the investigation into Crime No.27 of 2009 of Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad. Based on a complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant, 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent registered a crime in FIR No.27 of 2009 under Section 3, 4, 5 and 10 of the S.C., S.T., (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner, sole accused, would submit that on 17.03.2009, this Court while issuing notice before admission, initially granted interim stay for a period of four weeks and thereafter, on 11.06.2009, the same was extended until further orders. He further submitted that during subsistence of the interim stay, Police filed final report dated 09.10.2009 stating that the issue is civil in nature. Therefore, he filed C.C. No.1683 of 2009 and this Court by order dated 01.02.2011 closed the said contempt case on the ground that the extension of the interim stay granted by this Court was received after filing of the final report. Therefore, he submits that this criminal petition may be closed with a liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate action for questioning the final report dated 09.10.2009. The learned Public Prosecutor conceded for the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, this criminal petition is closed with a liberty to the petitioner to question the final report dated 09.10.2009. Date: 19.10.2011 LSK _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
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.