Ch.Samrajyam vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 5781 Tel

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2212 OF 2019

ORDER:

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the learned

Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioner and issuing

summons. The present petition is filed questioning the docket order

dated 15.03.2019 directing the issuance of summons to this

petitioner and another.

2. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant filed complaint on

15.07.2015 alleging that this petitioner and three others have

trespassed into her premises and abused her in most filthy

language and threatened her with dire consequences.

3. On the basis of the said complaint, police investigated the

case and filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 448,

427 and 506 of IPC. However, while filing charge sheet,

Investigating Officer found that there was no involvement of this

petitioner and another in the incident, which conclusion was on the

basis of the statement of witnesses L.Ws.2 and 3.

4. Learned Magistrate examined the 2nd respondent/ defacto

complainant as PW.1 and during the course of her examination she

stated that this petitioner and another person were also present

along with the charge sheeted accused A1 and A2 and she had

threatened her of dire consequences and also damaged door glasses

abusing in filthy language. On the basis of the said statement,

learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on 15.03.2019 and issued

summons.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

Magistrate was wrong in issuing the summons to the petitioner

without a protest petition being filed. The procedure that has to be

followed is to file a protest petition and on the basis of such protest

application only, cognizance should have been taken. In the

present case, when the police have found that this petitioner was

not present at the scene on the basis of two witnesses L.Ws.2 and

3, learned Magistrate ought not to have issued summons to this

petitioner. He further submits that a false criminal case is filed for

the reason of the petitioner filing a case under Section 354 of IPC

against the husband of the defacto complainant. He relied upon

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan

Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna and another1 and argued that the

procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is incorrect.

2010(1) ALD (Crl.) 213 (SC)

6. Learned Magistrate recorded the statement of P.W.1, in which

it was clearly mentioned that this petitioner and three others were

present at the scene and threatened her with dire consequences.

The said averment was also made in the complaint filed before the

police. Only for the reason of the witnesses L.Ws.2 and 3 not

mentioning the name of this petitioner, it cannot be a ground to not

to prosecute this petitioner. Under Section 319 of Cr.P.C, the

Court is at liberty to issue summons to any person whose

complicity is prima facie found during the course of trial. It does

not mean that all the witnesses have to be examined. It is sufficient

that on the basis of any evidence of witnesses, if the court comes to

a conclusion that such person ought to be summoned as an

accused, such person can be summoned. Learned Magistrate has

followed the procedure in accordance with Section 319 of Cr.P.C. It

cannot be said that the order taking cognizance and summoning

the petitioner is not in accordance with the procedure. The defence

taken by the petitioner that she was not present at the scene and

that she was present in the office can be agitated before the

concerned court during trial.

7. In view of above facts and circumstances, the petition is

devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and

accordingly dismissed.

8. However, keeping in view that the petitioner is a working

women, her attendance is dispensed before the trial Court on all

such dates when represented by a counsel. The petitioner shall

appear before the concerned court on the dates which the learned

Magistrate directs. Failure to appear before the Court in spite of

directions, this order dispensing her attendance stands cancelled.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 11.11.2022 kvs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2212 of 2020

Dt.11.11.2022

kvs