Telangana High Court
Amaraboina Veerababu vs The State Of Telangana on 5 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5724 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petitions is filed under 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 25 in Crime No.86 of 2024 on the file of Madlachervu Police Station, Suryapet District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 447, 425, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'); Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/STs (POA) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act') and Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C').
2. The brief facts of the case are thaton 02.01.2024 at about 09:30 a.m., the accused persons besides illegally trespassing into the house of respondent No.2 and attacking respondent No.2 and his family members, they also abused the wife of respondent No.2 in filthy language. It is stated that son of respondent No.2 already filed complaint against accused Nos.3 and 9 for the relief of recovery of money vide O.S.No.185 of 2023 and O.S.No.186 of 2023 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar and the criminal case is also registered against accused Nos.3 and 9 vide STC Nos.1256 of 2022, 1254 of 2022, 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024 1255 of 2022 and respondent No.2 also filed a complaint against accused Nos.23, 24 vide S.C.No.242 of 2016 and against accused Nos.5, 9 and 12 vide S.C.No.38 of 2023. Later, when the Police have not initiated any action in the above cases, respondent No.2 filed complaint before the Magistrate under Section 200 of Cr.P.C and upon direction of the Magistrate, the Medlachervu Police registered a case in Crime No.86 of 2024 for the alleged offences.
3. Heard Sri B.Muralidhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State as well as Sri Yadaiah Boddupally, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are no way concerned with the alleged offences. He further submitted that respondent No.2 and his family members are habitual complainants and were lodging the complaint with false allegations against the villagers. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024 stating that there are serious allegations against the petitioners, which requires trial and prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. In view of the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel, this Court has perused the material available on record. Admittedly, respondent No.2 and his son filed several criminal cases against the accused persons and other villagers. It is noteworthy that accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 9 abused the wife of respondent No.2 in filthy language in her caste name and accused Nos.1 and 9 bet her. The main allegation against the petitioners is that they not only trespassed into the house of respondent No.2 but also humiliated respondent No.2 and beat his wife by abusing her in the name of caste. That apart there are criminal cases pending between the parties filed by both the sides. In the present case, averments in the complaint specific over acts are against accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 9 and except stating the names of other accused there are no specific allegations against other accused. 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 as alleged by the Police. 4
SKS,J Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024
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. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court in Surendra Kori (supra), since except that accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 9 abused and mercilessly beaten the wife of respondent No.2 which requires trial, whereas there are no specific allegations against other accused i.e, accused Nos.4, 5 to 8 and 10 to 25, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proceedings against petitioner Nos.4, 5 to 8 and 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024 10 to 25/accused Nos.4, 5 to 8 and 10 to 25 are liable to be quashed and the proceedings against petitioner Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 9/accused No.1 to 3, 6 and 9 shall be continued.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed and the proceedings against petitioner Nos.4, 5 to 8 and 10 to 25/accused Nos.4, 5 to 8 and 10 to 25 in Crime No.86 of 2024 on the file of Medlachervu Police Station, Suryapet District, are hereby quashed and the proceedings against petitioner Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 9/accused No.1 to 3, 6 and 9 in Crime No.86 of 2024 on the file of Medlachervu Police Station, Suryapet District, shall be continued.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 05.11.2024 gms