Telangana High Court
Elugoya Arun vs The State Of Telangana on 29 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6658 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.) to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in P.R.C.No.45 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C').
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Chennaraopet Police Station, Warangal (rural) District against the petitioners stating that on 07.04.2022 afternoon around 14:00 hrs, regarding the divorce issue of his younger daughter, a argument took place between him and petitioner No.1. During the said arguments, petitioner No.1 abused respondent No.2 in filthy language and threatened him to kill if he does not send his wife to join in conjugal life. Both petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 lodged their complaints respectively at Narsampet Police Station. Later, while respondent No.2 was in the house of his sister, petitioners 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6658 of 2023 came their with sticks, wooden pestle abused him and attacked him and the Family members of respondent No.2 tried to stop the petitioners. In the meantime, when the villagers gathered there, the petitioners escaped by abusing respondent No.2. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.62 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 read with 34 of the I.P.C and after completion of the investigation, they filed charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet.
3. Heard Sri D. Sudharshan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State and P. Devender, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint filed by respondent No.2 is a vexatious complaint as the allegations levelled against the petitioners do not constitute any offence. The injury certificate produced by respondent No.2 shows that the injuries received by him are simple in nature, therefore, the question of Section 307 of IPC 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6658 of 2023 does not arise. He further submitted that the daughter of respondent No.2 is filing false cases against the petitioners despite there being settlement on 04.03.2022 for divorce. Petitioner No.1 and the daughter of respondent No.2 have agreed for the settlement. In clauses 4 and 5 of the said settlement, it is clearly stated that both the parties agreed not to file any complaint against each other. But, intentionally after settlement, suppressing the facts made therein, not only respondent No.2 but his daughter also filed complaints against the petitioners to harass and blackmail them to extract money. Therefore, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature. Therefore, quashing of proceedings at this stage does not arise and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6658 of 2023 the complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offence as alleged by the Police.
7. 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 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."
8. As seen from the record, it is to be noted that as per clause 4 of the said settlement, both the parties agreed not to file any criminal cases against each other and therefore, the settlement restraining legal proceedings is void settlement. Therefore, such clause in settlement is no way helpful to the 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6658 of 2023 petitioners. Further, the contention of the petitioners is that the injuries are simple in nature, as such, Section 307 of IPC is not applicable to the present case. Section 307 of IPC prescribes punishment for attempt to murder. The statement of witnesses shows that there is an intention to commit murder of respondent No.2, as such, it cannot be said that Section 307 of IPC is not applicable to the present case. At this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are false and baseless.
9. In view of the above discussion and 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 petitioners and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
___________ K. SUJANA Date: 29.04.2024 SAI