The vs Bhajan Lal
2023 Latest Caselaw 30 AP

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.9803 of 2022

ORDER:

The petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.165 of

2022 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Sattenapalli for offences under Sections 323, 341, 506 r/w 34 of

I.P.C.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the

petitioners had assaulted the de facto complainant on

29.01.2021 and had also abused and threatened the de facto

complainant for the purposes of getting him to vacate the house

in his occupation.

3. The de facto complainant had filed a complaint in

this regard on 23.01.2021.

4. The petitioners have approached this Court for

quashing the said complaint and case on the ground that the

allegations made in the complaint are highly improbable and

false.

5. Sri M.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioners would submit that guideline 5 & 7 of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal1

would clearly apply to the present case. He would submit that

the allegations are so improbable that no reasonable person can

proceed on such allegations. He would further submit that the

complaint itself is a malafide exercise on the part of the de facto

complainant, who is seeking to coerce the petitioners herein to

withdraw from the civil disputes between the de facto

complainant and the petitioners. Sri M.Chalapathi Rao would

lay particular emphasis on the inclusion of accused No.1 who is

the son of 1st petitioner. He would submit that accused No.1 is

presently studying in the United States of America and he has

been falsely implicated as the petitioners would accede to the

demands of the de facto complainant to save the future of

accused No.1.

6. Sri M.Chalapathi Rao would point to the

discrepancies in the statements made by the de facto

complainant. He would submit that the complaint and Section

161 of Cr.P.C statement of the de facto complainant would show

that six people are said to have assaulted him while the charge

sheet speaks of only five accused. Similarly, the de facto

complainant explained the delay in filing the complaint by more

(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335:1992 SCC (Cri) 426

than a day by stating that some elders were intervening in the

matter and had promised to settle the issues and that the

complaint had to be filed with delay as the elders had not settled

the issue.

7. Sri M.Chalapathi Rao would also point that the de

facto complainant in his statement, under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C., stated that he could not file the complaint in time on

account of his injuries and could file the complaint with delay

after he had recovered a little bit. These discrepancies, according

to Sri M.Chalapathi Rao would be fatal to the entire prosecution

itself as the delay in filing the complaint has not been explained

properly and the explanations are contradicting each other.

8. Sri M.Chalapathi Rao would also point out that the

incident is said to have occurred a few meters away from the

police station and the conduct of the complainant in keeping

quiet at that stage and going to the police station after a day

after the alleged incident clearly speaks about the falsity of the

complaint itself.

9. Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing

for respondent No.2 would rely upon the judgments of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and

Another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2, Motupalli Nagamani

vs. State3, M.A.A.Annamalai vs. State of Karnataka, Zandu

Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd.Sharaful Haque4, S.W.

Palanitkar vs. State of Bihar5, Dharampal vs. Ramshri6,

State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal7, Dhanalakshim vs.

R.Prasanna Kumar8, State of Karnataka vs. L.Muniswamy9,

Sharda Prasad Sinha vs. State of Bihar 10 and Nagawwa vs.

V.S.Konjalgi11 to contend that the grounds raised by Sri

M.Chalapathi Rao are at best issues that need to be gone into in

the course of the trial and the same would not be sufficient for

quashing the complaint and the C.C. He would further submit

that the allegations in the C.C more than make out a case

against the petitioners under the aforesaid offences and the

veracity of these allegations can only be tested in the course of a

trial. He would rely upon aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court to contend that this Court should not go into a

fact finding exercise or conduct an enquiry into the matter

without a trial being conducted.

(2018) SCC Online Hyd 1896

(2018) SCC Online Hyd 1895

(2005) 1 SCC 122: 2005 SCC (Cri)283

(2002) 1 SCC 241:2002 SCC (Cri)129

(1993) 1 SCC 435:1993 SCC (Cri)333

1992 SUPP (1) SCC 335:1992 SCC (Cri)426

1990 Supp 686 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 142

(1997) 1 SCC 505:1977 SCC (Cri) 404

(1977) 1 SCC 505:1977 SCC (Cri) 132

(1976) 3 SCC 736:1976 SCC (Cri) 507

10. Heard both sides.

11. A perusal of the complaint shows that a case is

made out on the face of the allegations in the complaint.

However, the question of whether these allegations are true or

not and the question of whether the delay in filing the complaint

has been explained properly and whether the said delay would

negative the entire complaint itself and consequently the

investigation are matters which should be gone into in the

course of the trial. It would not be appropriate for this Court to

go into these issues at this stage. However, the contentions

raised by Sri M.Chalapathi Rao do raise questions which would

need to be gone into by the trial Court. In the circumstances,

this criminal petition is disposed of leaving it open to the

petitioners to raise all these issues before the trial Court and

needless to say the trial shall consider all these issues including

the lacune in the investigation which is being pointed out by Sri

M.Chalapathi Rao before come into any conclusion in the

matter. Needless to say, it would be open to the petitioners to

seek dispensing of their presence before the Magistrate as and

when necessary and said application should be construed

liberally by the learned Magistrate.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

03.01.2023 RJS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9803 of 2022

03.01.2023 RJS