BAIRAM MURALIDHAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-2014-7-77
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on
July 31,2014
Bairam Muralidhar
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF BIHAR VS. RAM NARESH PANDEY:RAM NARESH PANDEY [REFERRED TO]BANSI LAL VS. CHANDAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. CHANDRIKA MOHAPATRA [REFERRED TO]
BALWANT SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDER VS. STATE CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDER KUMAR JAIN MANOHAR LAL ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
SHEONANDAN PASWAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
R M TEWARI ADVOCATE GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI MOHD MEHFOOZ VS. STATE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KARIM VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL AGARWAL VS. RAKESH JAIN [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
STATE OF U.P. VS. NASEEM AHMAD AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-269] [REFERRED TO]IN RE: WITHDRAWAL OF CRIMINAL CASES BY STATE GOVERNMENT (ARISING OUT OF CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 10816 OF 2015 RAM NARAYAN YADAV V. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS) VS. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-198] [REFERRED TO]
NATURAL AGRO PRODUCTS LTD VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(CAL)-2015-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH VS. RAMESH & OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2016-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
K K MISHRA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR [LAWS(SC)-2018-4-50] [REFERRED TO]
MANI VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-9-93] [REFERRED TO]
CAPT. RAM SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-7-106] [REFERRED TO]
BITRA VENKATESWARA RAO VS. STATE ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-7-30] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPENDER SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2017-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
SUO MOTU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-11-80] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESHKUMAR C. DAVE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
G.SATAYANARAYANA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-4-88] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. RAM SHARAN SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2023-1-194] [REFERRED TO]
AFJAL ALI SHA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWANATH @ VISHU PHANIRAJ GOPI BHAT VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-5-129] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: WITHDRAWAL OF CRIMINAL CASES BY STATE GOVERNMENT (ARISING OUT OF CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 10816 OF 2015 RAM NARAYAN YADAV V. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS) VS. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-35] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF SIKKIM VS. ASAL KUMAR THAPA [LAWS(SIK)-2020-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
THIRU N.RAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2020-5-59] [REFERRED TO]
AMARJEET VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. M.K. STALIN [LAWS(MAD)-2024-3-74] [REFERRED TO]
M/S V.L.S. FINANCE LTD. VS. S.P. GUPTA AND ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2016-2-14] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. K. AJITH [LAWS(SC)-2021-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
DHULLU MAHATO VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
ANISUR RAHAMAN VS. JAHAR SHA [LAWS(CAL)-2021-7-20] [REFERRED TO]
B.N. GOPALAKRISHANA VS. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2015-12-209] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2016-5-82] [REFERRED TO]
PARAMJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-1-291] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL WAHAB K. VS. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2018-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)In this appeal, by special leave, the assail is to the defensibility of the order dated 8.12.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 1125 of 2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has concurred with the view expressed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderbad in Crl. P No. 994 of 2009 in C.C. No. 24 of 2007, whereunder the learned trial Judge had declined to grant permission to withdraw the case pending against the accused-appellant in exercise of the power under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code").
(3.)The expose' of facts are the appellant was arrayed as an accused for offences punishable under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act'). As per the prosecution case the son of one Ranga Dharma Goud fell in love with his neighbour's daughter and both of them eloped on 25.01.2006. The neighbour, Radhakrishna Murthy, lodged an FIR at Kamareddy Town Police Station which was registered as Criminal Case No. 21/2006 under Section- 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Sub-Inspector of the Police Station took up the investigation and arrested the son of the Ranga Dharma Goud who suffered judicial custody. When all these things happened Ranga Dharma Goud who was working as a Driver in Dubai came to India and he was asked to come to the Police Station on 22.04.2006 and again on 26.04.2006 on which dates the investigating officer demanded a sum of Rs.6000/- to be paid for not implicating him in the said kidnapping case and also to file the charge- sheet against his son by reducing the gravity of the charge. As Ranga Dharma Gaud expressed his inability to pay the amount the investigating officer reduced the demand to Rs.5000/-. Expressing his unwillingness to pay, he approached the DSP, ADB, Nizamabad Range, who after due verifications, registered a case in Cr. No. 4/ACB/NZB/2006 on 4.5.2006 under Section 7 & 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Act. On the basis of the registration of the FIR the trap was laid and eventually charge- sheet was placed against the accused officer before the competent Court.
(2.)In this appeal, by special leave, the assail is to the defensibility of the order dated 8.12.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 1125 of 2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has concurred with the view expressed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderbad in Crl. P No. 994 of 2009 in C.C. No. 24 of 2007, whereunder the learned trial Judge had declined to grant permission to withdraw the case pending against the accused-appellant in exercise of the power under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code").
(3.)The expose' of facts are the appellant was arrayed as an accused for offences punishable under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act'). As per the prosecution case the son of one Ranga Dharma Goud fell in love with his neighbour's daughter and both of them eloped on 25.01.2006. The neighbour, Radhakrishna Murthy, lodged an FIR at Kamareddy Town Police Station which was registered as Criminal Case No. 21/2006 under Section- 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Sub-Inspector of the Police Station took up the investigation and arrested the son of the Ranga Dharma Goud who suffered judicial custody. When all these things happened Ranga Dharma Goud who was working as a Driver in Dubai came to India and he was asked to come to the Police Station on 22.04.2006 and again on 26.04.2006 on which dates the investigating officer demanded a sum of Rs.6000/- to be paid for not implicating him in the said kidnapping case and also to file the charge- sheet against his son by reducing the gravity of the charge. As Ranga Dharma Gaud expressed his inability to pay the amount the investigating officer reduced the demand to Rs.5000/-. Expressing his unwillingness to pay, he approached the DSP, ADB, Nizamabad Range, who after due verifications, registered a case in Cr. No. 4/ACB/NZB/2006 on 4.5.2006 under Section 7 & 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Act. On the basis of the registration of the FIR the trap was laid and eventually charge- sheet was placed against the accused officer before the competent Court.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.