Telangana High Court
Sri. Balugam Rajashekar And 2 ... vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 10 January, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2501 OF 2021
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against
the petitioners/A1 to A3 in C.C.No.661 of 2019 on the file of I
Additional Magistrate of First Class at Jagtial.
2. The case of the 2nd respondent is that she was married to late
Mohan Reddy, who is the son of the 3rd petitioner herein. Her
husband died on 28.02.2017 and huge amounts were spent for his
treatment in the hospital. After the death of her husband,
petitioners allegedly asked her to leave the house. On 28.05.2017
around 12.00 noon, when the 2nd respondent was in the house,
these three petitioners and two other persons threatened the 2nd
respondent and injured her by beating her with hands. Since the
petitioners were trying to send her away from her husband's house,
she requested to take action against these petitioners and give
protection.
3. The said complaint was lodged on 01.02.2018 and registered
on the same day for the offences under Sections 448, 323, 294 (b)
r/w 34 IPC. After concluding investigation, charge sheet was also
filed for the said offences.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that a false complaint is deliberately filed and there is a delay of
nearly 9 months. Though, it is alleged that the incident happened
on 28.05.2017 complaint was filed on 01.02.2018. The reason given
for the delay is that she could not leave the house. However, she
has been pursing with revenue authorities for mutation in her name
with respect to the property of her husband. She filed the said
application for mutation along with notarized affidavit on
29.05.2017 and on 30.05.2017, objections were also filed by
petitioners 2 and 3. In support of his contentions, he relied on the
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmed Ali
Quraishi & another v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020 AIR (SC) 788), State of
Karnataka v. M.Devendrappa (2002 LawSuit(SC) 56; Harshendra Kumar D
v. Rebatilata Koley ETC (2011 LawSuit (SC) 74 and argued that criminal
prosecution is a serious matter and the Court cannot issue
proceedings mechanically. If it is found by the High Court that the
criminal prosecution is deliberately made, such an abuse can be
prevented under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
5. On the other hand, Sri Gopala Krishna Kalanidhi, learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the 2nd
respondent widow was subjected to harassment and she had to
approach the authorities seeking justice. The delay is well explained
and this Court should not interfere in the criminal prosecution. The
trial court would ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the complaint, as such, the criminal petition
has to be dismissed.
6. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent was pursuing with the Mandal
Revenue Officer regarding mutation from 29.05.2017 itself and the
proceedings were going. There are proceedings of the
Grampanchayat dated 17.06.2017, pursuant to an application
made by 2nd respondent to the village Panchayat. In the said
proceedings, the Panchayat Secretary of Mothe Mandal has issued
proceedings stating that the request of the 2nd respondent to mutate
her name with respect to the property, which are flat Nos.101, 102,
302, 501 and 504 in Rajyalakshmi Apartment cannot be considered
as it was joint family property.
7. A civil suit was also filed by the 2nd respondent on 02.02.2018,
the next day of filing criminal complaint.
8. The reason given for the delay of nine months in filing the
criminal complaint on the basis of record is incorrect and
apparently false. When she was pursuing her civil remedy with the
Grampanchayat and also the revenue office, it cannot be said that
she was not in a position to move out and could not lodge the
complaint.
9. In view of the ongoing civil disputes in between her and the
family members, who are petitioners herein, the present criminal
complaint appears to have been deliberately made with an intention
to coerce the petitioners into settling the civil disputes. Such
proceedings which are deliberately made to intimidate and
pressurize the parties into settling disputes which are purely civil in
nature; such criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue.
10. The alleged beating and trespass on 28.05.2017 cannot be
believed. The question of trespassing into one's own house does not
arise. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent was staying in her
matrimonial home after death of her husband. Except bald
statement that she was beaten, there is no evidence forthcoming
from any independent witnesses. In the back ground of the present
case facts, wherein there are disputes regarding the property, the
present complaint regarding trespass and beating cannot be
believed as the same appears to have been made only to build
pressure on the petitioners.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed
Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another ((2009) 8
Supreme Court Cases 751) held that when disputes are essentially
civil in nature, it is the duty of the criminal courts to check abuse of
the process and see to that criminal proceedings are not misused to
pressurize and settle civil disputes.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil
Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and others ((2006) 6 Supreme
Court Cases 736) held that when the disputes arise out of breach of
contract and civil remedy was available, the allegations in the
criminal complaint has to be considered and the High Court under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C quash such criminal proceedings which are
made with an intention of setting civil disputes.
13. Considering the delay of 9 months in lodging the complaint,
nature of complaint and pending civil disputes, the petition stands
allowed and consequently the proceedings against the petitioners 1
to 3 in C.C.No.661 of 2019 on the file of I Additional Magistrate of
First Class at Jagtial are hereby quashed.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel
thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 10.01.2023
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITOIN No.2501 OF 2021
Date: 10.01.2023
kvs
