B.Sirdhar Another vs Smt V. Chitra Durga And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3041 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                    CRL.P.No.10857 OF 2015
ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to

quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-5 & A-6 in

C.C.No.201 of 2016, on the file of the learned XVII-Additional

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri.

2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

3. The first respondent filed a private complaint before the

learned X-Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri

against A-1 to A-7 alleging offences under Section 323, 448, 452,

506, 509 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and the same was

forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section

156(3) Cr.P.C., for investigation and report. Thereafter, the Police,

Malkajgiri registered a case in Cr.No.52 of 2011 and after due

investigation, filed charge sheet and the same was taken

cognizance.

4. It is stated by the first respondent in her complaint that A-1

is the elder brother of her husband, A-2 is the wife of A-1, A-7 is

the first wife of her husband, A-4 and A-6 are the daughters of A-7

and A-3 and A-5 are the sons-in-law of A-7. The marriage of the

first respondent with one Rama Krishna was solemnized on

28.07.1993 and they were blessed with a child. Later, the parents

of the first respondent purchased various properties situated at

Lalavaninagar, Malkajgiri and another property in Guntur District.

The husband of the first respondent died on 28.04.2010. There

were disputes between her husband and A-1 and A-2 in respect of

sharing of joint family property. The financial affairs of the family

were handled by A-1 and A-2. After the death of husband of the

first respondent, A-1 to A-7 picked up quarrel with her beat her and

her child mercilessly and forced her to transfer the ownership of

the properties in the names of A-1 to A-7. A-1 to A-2 used to

quarrel with her husband and they beat her and her husband to

register the properties in their names.

5. On 25.07.2010, A-1 and A-2 trespassed into the house of the

first respondent with antisocial elements and abused her in filthy

language and they even beat and threatened her stating that they

will seen her end if she failed to transfer the properties in their

names. On the eve of darasa festival, A-1 to A-7 went to the house

of the first respondent with the same demand and after

15 days, A-1 to A-7 again went to the house of the first respondent

in the midnight and threatened her to leave Hyderabad after

transferring the properties in their name. When the first respondent

refused, A-3 to A-7 beat her and tried to kill her by pushing her

neck. A-1 to A-7 used to harass the first respondent mentally and

physically over the same.

6. On 11.10.2011, A-1 to A-7 along with other henchmen went

to the house of the first respondent with swords and trespassed into

her house and started abusing her in filthy language. A-4 to A-7

caught hold the hands of the first respondent, while A-1 to A-7 beat

her. A-3 to A-5 also caught hold of her hair and pushed her out of

the house demanding her to transfer the properties in their names

for which she refused. Subsequently, on 10.11.2011, A-1 to A-7

forcibly entered into the house of the complainant and tried to kill

her and they also took out deadly weapons and threatened her.

7. The trial court split up the case against petitioners/A-5 and

A-6 and numbered it as C.C.No.201 of 2016. The trial court

proceeded against A-1 to A-4 and A-7 and by judgment dated

18.03.2020 in C.C.No.1200 of 2012, the learned Magistrate found

them not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323,

448, 452, 506, 509 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and, accordingly,

acquitted them.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

the marriage between the mother of 2nd petitioner herein i.e., A-7

and her father (Ramakrishna) is subsisting and due to some

differences between them they lived separately. The father of

2nd petitioner herein died on 28.04.2010 leaving behind her, her

sister and her mother, who are A-4 to A-7. The learned counsel

further submits that the first respondent joined the father of the

2nd petitioner/A-6 in order to knock away the properties which

were purchased during his life time. After the demise of her father,

2nd petitioner/A-6 and her sister filed a suit O.S.No.905 of 2010

against the first respondent for partition of the suit schedule

property before the court of the learned Principal District Judge,

Ranga Reddy and the same is pending. The learned counsel

further submits that the case against A-1 to A-4 and A-7 ended in

acquittal and the same benefit may be extended to the present

petitioners as well. He prayed for quashing of the proceedings

against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.201 of 2016.

9. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners

and contends that there is sufficient material to punish the

petitioners/A-5 and A-6 for the offences with which they are

charged. She prays to dismiss the petition.

10. A perusal of the judgment of the trial court in C.C.No.1200

of 2012 shows that the prosecution has examined only the

complainant and failed to examine any of the witness cited in

the charge sheet, more particularly when five eyewitnesses,

including the daughter of first respondent who was also cited as

eyewitness to the occurrence. The first respondent in her evidence

reiterated the averments made in the compliant, charge sheet and

statement of witnesses. However, as there was no cogent and

convincing evidence and as the prosecution has failed to examine

the material eyewitnesses to prove the guilt of the accused, the trial

court after considering the material on record has found A-1 to A-4

and A-7 not guilty of the offences with which they are charged

and, accordingly, acquitted them. Since the case against A-1 to

A-4 and A-7 ended in acquittal, continuation of the proceedings

against the petitioners herein/A-5 and A-6 with the same set of

allegations and witnesses would be nothing but a futile exercise

and no useful purpose would be served by driving the petitioners to

face prosecution and it would certainly amount to harassment to the

petitioners to undergo the rigour of trial. It is, therefore, considered

a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section

482 Cr.P.C and quash further proceedings against the

petitioners/A-5 & A-6 in C.C.No.201 of 2016.

11. The criminal petition is, accordingly, allowed. The

proceedings against the petitioners/A-5 & A-6 in C.C.No.201 of

2016, on the file of the learned XVII-Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, are hereby quashed.

12. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 24.06.2022 Lrkm