REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Nara Chandrababu Naidu Appellant

V/S

State of Telangana Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C., seeking to quash the order dated 29.8.2016 as well as the proceedings in CCSR No.958 of 2016 in Crime No.11/ACB-CR-1- HYD/2015 on the file of the Court of the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad (the Special Court/the Special Judge). Pleadings of the petitioner

(2.) The petitioner filed the present petition contending that the second respondent, who is a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) representing Mangalagiri Constituency in Andhra Pradesh, belongs to YSR Congress Party, and who has no connection with Crime No.11/ACB-CR-1-HYD/2015 on the file of ACB Police Station, City Range-I, Hyderabad (neither informant nor a witness), filed the private complaint (CCSR No.958 of 2016) against the petitioner before the Special Court on 08.8.2016. The complaint was filed basing on the same allegations in the above Crime, in which a charge sheet had been filed on 27.7.2015. It is pertinent to note that the complaint does not disclose about the filing of the charge sheet in the Crime. The impugned order dated 29.8.2016 passed by learned Special Judge in CCSR No.958 of 2016 directing the ACB to conduct thorough investigation and file report under Sec. 156(3) Crimial P.C., is legally not sustainable, as the power under section 156(3) Crimial P.C., is not available to post cognizance stage i.e., after filing of charge sheet. If the impugned order is allowed to stand, it would result in an anomalous situation of registration of second First Information Report (FIR), in connection with the same incident. The alleged incident is relating to the elections to the Legislative Council of the State of Telangana for which the second respondent is no way concerned. The second respondent filed the complaint, as a weapon, to wreak vengeance against the petitioner. The second respondent has no locus standi to file the private complaint, especially, with a request to invoke the provisions of Sec. 210 Crimial P.C., as he is neither a victim nor an aggrieved person. The relief under Sec. 210 Crimial P.C., cannot be granted, as it mandates pre-existence of a private complaint before the Magistrate, which is not the case herein. The second respondent has not followed the procedure contemplated under the Crimial P.C., in filing the complaint; therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.

(3.) The complaint was not supported by affidavit. The second respondent filed the complaint with a prayer to take cognizance of his complaint and to proceed further in terms of Sec. 210 Crimial P.C., whereas the learned Special Judge ordered investigation under Sec. 156(3) Crimial P.C., which is contrary to the relief sought by the second respondent. Mere endorsement of the learned Special Judge that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that he has applied his mind at the time of passing the impugned order under Sec. 156(3) Crimial P.C. The learned Special Judge passed the impugned order without applying his judicial mind to the facts of the case and therefore, the order is not sustainable under law.

Click here to view full judgment.

NARA CHANDRABABU NAIDU, S/O. LATE KHARJURA NAIDU Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANOTHER

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address