Telangana High Court
Mohd Jaleel vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 8 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2582 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.4, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in CC.No.16233 of 2019, pending on the file of the learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 read with 34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 17.07.2019 in Musheerabad Police Station against the petitioner/accused No.4 and the police registered FIR for the offences under Sections 324 read with 34 of IPC. According to the complainant on 17.07.2019, while he was going to the house along with his friends, meanwhile they stepped on water ditch on the road and the water splashed on two people, upon which, they picked up quarrel with him and later they beat him with 2 sticks and hands and injured him. The said two persons also beat him and his friends Krishna and Vinay Sonu, due to which they also received injuries. Based on the same, police registered a case in Crime No.278/2019 on 17.07.2019 for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC.
3. Originally, the case was registered against accused Nos. 1 to 3 only and later, the name of the petitioner was added as accused No.4 and Section 506 IPC was also added in addition to Section 324 read with 34 IPC. While filing the complaint, the complainant has not mentioned the name of the petitioner. It is only after investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner/accused No.4 and others. The petitioner is not involved in the crime and no allegations are levelled against him. There is no reason to mention the name of the petitioner in the complaint nor in the charge sheet or about his role in the commission of the alleged offence. The complaint is nothing but abuse of process of criminal law through motivated and afterthought designs resorted to by the complainant. No 3 allegations are made in the complaint against the petitioner and the complaint is made malafidely. As such, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings.
4. Heard Sri V.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.
5. Though notice was served on respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that accused No.4 was added by the police while filing charge sheet. Initially, the name of the petitioner was not included in the FIR and there are no specific allegations levelled against him in the complaint. As such,he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the truth or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint 4 cannot be decided at this stage and the same shall have to be decided only after full-fledged trial. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
8. Having regard to the rival submissions of both sides and material available on record, as seen from the statements of the witnesses, there are specific allegations against this petitioner also. The statement of complainant/LW-1 shows that this petitioner threatened the victims and also quarreled with them. When there are specific allegations against this petitioner it requires trial. Therefore, at this stage, the proceedings against petitioner/accused No.4 cannot be quashed.
9. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 5 jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."
10. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial and dispose of the C.C. as expeditiously as possible.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall also stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE K. SUJANA Date:08.04.2024 ktm