Nakkireddy Suguna And 2 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 3781 Tel

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

                CRIMINAL PETITION No.7836 OF 2015
ORDER:

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

quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.123 of 2015

on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad,

Karimnagar District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections

341, 427 and 506 r/w 34 IPC.

2 Heard Sri P.Devender, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and

Sri Vizarath Ali, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the

first respondent - State and Sri K.Buchi Babu, learned counsel for the

second respondent / de facto complainant.

3 The accusation against the petitioners is that on 29.01.2015 at 10.00

am, while the second respondent and her husband were at their fields in the

village, the petitioners herein who are the mother-in-law, father-in-law and

brother-in-law respectively of the second respondent went there and took

out the current motor and threw it into the well. When questioned the same,

the petitioners grew wild land threatened the complainant to kill. The

incident was witnessed by L.Ws.3 and 4. Hence the second respondent

lodged a complaint with Police Kesavapatnam P.S. which was registered as a

case in Cr.No.10 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 341,

427 and 506 of IPC. Upon completion of investigation the police filed charge

sheet against the petitioners for the alleged offences and the same was

numbered as C.C.No.123 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District. As stated supra,

seeking to quash the same, the petitioners filed this criminal petition.

4 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second

respondent foisted a false case against the petitioners and that the second

respondent lodged another complaint in Cr.No.46 of 2015 dated 15.5.2015.

Both the crimes revolve around the joint family property. He further

submitted that the husband of the second respondent herein who is the son

of the first petitioner filed O.S.No.38 of 2010 against the petitioners for the

relief of injunction. The said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree

dated 31.01.2015. He further submitted that the husband of the second

respondent herein being the plaintiff admitted during the cross examination

that the first petitioner herein is cultivating the property.

5 The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

present crime was registered on vexatious allegations and the ingredients of

the alleged offences do not attract.

6 On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor as well as

the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that this is not a fit

case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners and truth or otherwise

of the allegations will come to light during the course of trial only and hence

prayed to dismiss the petition.

7 As seen from the complaint itself, the offences alleged are under

Sections 341, 427 and 506 IPC. The complaint does not disclose that the

petitioners have in any way confined the de facto complainant. No whisper

is there to that effect. Hence the offence of Section 341 does not attract.

8 Coming to the other allegations of causing damage and threatening

with dire consequences, it is to be seen that the husband of the second

respondent filed a civil suit against the petitioners for injunction which was

dismissed by a competent civil court. The observation in the judgment of the

civil court was that the second respondent or for that matter her husband

are not in possession of the subject property. Hence the second respondent

cannot claim any right over the property and on the other hand it is an

admitted fact that the first petitioner is cultivating the subject property. In

such circumstances question of causing damage to their own property also

does not arise at all. Consequently, when the two prime accusations are not

attracting, offence under Section 506 IPC also does not attract.

9 It is to be seen further that there is a civil dispute between the parties

and the competent civil court has given a categorical finding against the

second respondent. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the present case

is nothing but a counter blast to the said civil dispute. Since the findings of

the civil court are binding on the present criminal proceedings wherein the

civil court dismissed the suit filed by the second respondent, I am of the

considered view that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the

petitioners.

10 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal 1

held that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide

and / or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior

motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite

him due to private and personal grudge, then the proceedings can be

quashed against the accused.

11 Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings

against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.123 of 2015 on the file of the Court

of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District.

Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal petition shall stand

closed.

------------------------

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.

Date: 09.11.2023 Kvsn

1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335