Telangana High Court
Korna Alexander vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.24 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filedunder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.487 of 2022 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parkal, registered for the offence punishable under Sections290, 323, 324, 506 read with 34of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent NO.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Parkal Police Station, stating that his land is adjacent to the land of petitioner Nos.1 and 4 and keeping in mind the scenario that in view of chilli sprouts destruction a penalty was paid, on 18.03.2022 the petitioner No.1 has spit on him. It is alleged that after exchange of words, the petitioner No.1 abused him in filthy language and beat with hands ; petitioner No.2 who is wife of petitioner NO.1 beat him with sandals and later the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 beat him with hands and kicked with legs and threatened that they would kill him. 2
SKS,J Crl.P.No.24 OF 2024
3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police investigated the matter and on completion of due investigation a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 225 read with Section 34 of IPC. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2/de facto complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no doubt that civildisputes prevail between the petitioner No.4 and the respondent No.2 as their agricultural lands are adjacent to each other. He contended that petitioner No.2 is sister of petitioner No.4 and petitioner NO.1 is his brother in law and as petitioner NOs.1 and 2 visited the house of petitioner No.4, the respondent NO.2 took this as opportunity to implicate the family of petitioner NO.4 in this false case with an intention to convert the existing civil dispute into criminal dispute. He asserted that the respondent NO.2 has created 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.24 OF 2024 false and fabricated medical documents and has also managed to put the petitioners under political influence. Therefore, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the averments of the complaint would show that the petitionersabused the respondent No.2 and also beat him with hands and legs. He contended that there are serious allegations against the petitioners, as such, the matter requires trial. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is pertinent to note that to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offence against the accused persons, as alleged by the Police.
8. That being so, it is imperative to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.24 OF 2024 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."
9. In the present case, there is no disagreement between the parties with regard to the pending civil disputes pertaining to their respective agricultural lands. The complaint averments and the statements of the witnesses would 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.24 OF 2024 revealthatpetitioner No.1 has spit on respondent No.2 and after exchange of words, the petitioner No.1 abused him in filthy language and thereafter, the petitioners/accused beat him with hands and sandals and kicked with legs and also threatened to kill him. The allegations leveled against the petitioners are with regard to abuse in filthy language and also beating with hands and kicking with legs. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Das Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others 2 has observed that the genuineness of the allegations raised is an issue to be tried and the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot delve into such factual controversies so as to quash the proceedings.
10. In view of the above discussion and having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires full-fledged trial and there are no merits in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 and the same is liable to be dismissed.
2 (2011) 12 SCC 319 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.24 OF 2024
11. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date:06.06.2024 PT