Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Attili Swetha vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 January, 2023

    THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12299 OF 2018

ORDER:-

       This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by A1 and A2, to

quash the proceedings in C.C.No.162 of 2016 on the file of

the III Metropolitan Magistrate, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 324 and 323 r/w 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2. The allegations, in brief, in the charge sheet may be

stated as follows:

   Attili    Lakshmi   (L.W.1)/the   de   facto   complainant/

2nd respondent herein and Attili Annapoorna (L.W.2) are

the sisters of one Swamy. A1 and A2 are the children of

Swamy. There are disputes with regard to ancestral

properties between the said Swamy and his sisters. While

so, on 04.1.2013 A1 and A2/the petitioners herein beat the

de facto complainant/2nd respondent and Attili Anapoorna

(L.W.2) with hands and stick. On that the de facto

complainant/2nd respondent gave report against A1 and

A2. Basing on the said report, police registered a case in

Crime No.6 of 2013 against A1 and A2. After completion of

investigation, the police filed charge sheet against A1 and

A2 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.162 of 2016 on

the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate at

Visakhapatnam.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners (A1 and

A2), and the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor,

appearing for 1st respondent. Though notice was served on

the respondent No.2, none appeared on behalf of her. This

Court perused the entire record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even

if accepted the entire accusations are true, still no offence

is made out against the petitioners for the offences under

Section 324 and 323 r/w 34 IPC. He strenuously

contended that the Medical Certificate was issued by the

Doctor of Dharitri Hospital, Visakhapatnam, which is a

Private Hospital and it is dated 21.7.2015 and hence it

cannot be relied upon. He further submits that there are

disputes between the petitioners and 2nd respondent and

Attili Annapoorna (L.W.2), hence the petitioners are falsely

implicated in this case by foisting false case against them.

5. The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor

contended that the truth or otherwise of the allegations

made against the petitioners have to be decided only

during the course of trial and in fact there are specific

accusations against the petitioners herein and hence this

Court, in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot

evaluate the evidence and decide the merits.

6. Apparently on perusal of the charge sheet, and

statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., they go to

show that there are disputes with regard to ancestral

properties between both the parties. In connection with the

said disputes, there are suits pending before the civil

Court. It is alleged that on 04.1.2013 Attili Annapoorna

(L.W.2) when attended the Court to give evidence, her

brother Swamy engaged labourers for

construction/renovation of a house in the disputed site

and went out. 2nd respondent herein questioned the

workers who were attending the construction work. On

that A1 and A2 the children of Swamy came out from their

house and beat 2nd respondent and Attili Annapoorna

(L.W.2) with hands. A2 picked up a stick and beat Attili

Annapoorna (L.W.2) on her head and caused bleeding

injuries. A2 also beat 2nd respondent with the same stick

on her arms and caused injuries. A1 applied pressure the

neck of 2nd respondent and beat her with hands. Hence,

2nd respondent herein gave report to the police and based

on the said report, police registered a case in Crime No.6 of

2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and

323 r/w 34 IPC and after completion of investigation filed

the charge sheet and the same is taken on file and

numbered as C.C.No.162 of 2016 by the III Metropolitan

Magistrate.

7. Going by the accusations there are disputes between

both parties with regard to ancestral properties. On that

the petitioners beat 2nd respondent herein and Attili

Annapoorna (L.W.2) with hands and stick and as a result,

2nd respondent herein and Attili Annapoorna (L.W.2)

received multiple abrasions to the scalp and palm. On the

same date, the witnesses have been subjected for medical

examination i.e., on 04.1.2013 at 10.30 P.M., The doctor

has issued certificate that 2nd respondent herein and Attili

Annapoorna (L.W.2) received multiple injuries. A perusal of

the Medical Certificate goes to show that the said certificate

was issued on 21.7.2015 by the doctor of Dharitri Hospital,

Visakhapatnam. The injuries received by the de facto

complainant/2nd respondent herein and another show that

incident had taken place during evening hours of the day

and medical certificate is corroboration to that extent. A

perusal of the statements of the witnesses categorically

reveals that both the accused came out from the house and

beat 2nd respondent herein and Attili Annapoorna (L.W.2).

8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner also

contended that cognizance has been taken beyond the

period of limitation. It is submitted on 04.1.2013 the said

alleged incident had taken place. S.Tata Rao

(L.W.10)/Inspector of Police registered the FIR on the same

date of giving report i.e., 04.1.2013 at about 7.00 pm.

Thus, the said report has been lodged immediately after

three hours of the incident. When the information has been

given to the police on the same day, it cannot be said that

the said report has been given beyond period of limitation.

For computing the period of limitation under Section 468

Cr.P.C. the relevant date is the date of filing of complaint or

the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on

which the Magistrate takes cognizance. My view has been

fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Amritlal vs Shantilal Soni 1, wherein it is held,

3.1. (i) Whether for the purposes of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of the prosecution or whether the relevant date is the date on which a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence? 3.2.

(ii) Which of the two cases i.e. Krishna Pillai [Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran, 1990 Supp SCC 121] or Bharat Kale [Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P., (2003) 8 SCC 559] (which is followed in Japani Sahoo [Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394]), lays down the correct law?

The Constitution Bench answered the aforesaid questions as follows: -

51. In view of the above, we hold that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. We further hold that Bharat Kale [Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P., (2003) 8 SCC 559] which is followed in Japani Sahoo [Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394]

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248

lays down the correct law. Krishna Pillai [Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran, 1990 Supp SCC 121 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 646] will have to be restricted to its own facts and it is not the authority for deciding the question as to what is the relevant date for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC.

(emphasis supplied) Therefore, the enunciations and declaration of law by the Constitution Bench do not admit of any doubt that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC, the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence. The High Court has made a fundamental error in assuming that the date of taking cognizance i.e., 04.12.2012 is decisive of the matter, while ignoring the fact that the written complaint was indeed filed by the appellant on 10.07.2012, well within the period of limitation of 3 years with reference to the date of commission of offence i.e., 04.10.2009."

9. Thus, in the present case, specific overtacts have

been attributed against the petitioners herein as seen from

the charge sheet. At this stage, this Court would not be in

a position to ascertain truth or otherwise of the said

accusations. The defences that are sought to be raised are

all being questions of fact, they have to be established in

the course of trial. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is

primarily concerned with the accusations that are made in

the charge-sheet and other material available on record

and cannot make a roving enquiry about the truthfulness

or falsity of the same.

10. In view of the same, this is premature for this Court to