Telangana High Court

Kodakanchi Ganesh vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 22 September, 2023

Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

               CRIMINAL PETITION No.6246 OF 2022

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused to

quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.838 of 2022 on the file of

VIII Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Athivelli. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under

Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

2. Heard Sri M.P.K.Aditya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri

S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State

and Sri S.Parikshith, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the

record.

3. The brief facts, culled out from the charge sheet, are that on

06.05.2022, respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner

alleging that on 04.05.2022 at 06:30 hours, one of his tenant was

expired and when ambulance reached the house to take dead body, the

auto of respondent No.2 was parked on the road, due to which, the

ambulance was unable to come near to the house. When respondent

No.2 was explaining, his neighbor i.e., the petitioner herein came to the

scene, quarreled with him for blocking the lane. Further, it is alleged in

GAC, J Crlp_6246_2022

the complaint that the petitioner had old factions in mind and argued

with the father of respondent No.2 and when the wife of respondent No.2

tried to stop the argument, the petitioner went to his house and brought

a stick from his home and tried to hit respondent No.2 and when his wife

tried to stop him, the petitioner hit his wife on her hand, due to which,

she received injury on left hand middle finger. As the daughter of

respondent No.2 was having 10th class exams and that his wife was

admitted in Hospital for treatment, respondent No.2 could not lodge the

complaint on the date of incident. Basing on the same, a case in Crime

No.387 of 2022 on the file of the Station House Officer, Jeedimetla Police

Station, Cyberabad, was registered against the petitioner. The police,

after due investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioner and the

same was numbered as C.C.No.838 of 2022 on the file of VIII Additional

Junior Civil Judge-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Athivelli.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the police have

mechanically investigated the case and laid charge sheet; the petitioner

is innocent; the petitioner lodged a complaint dated 19.04.2022 before

District Ground Water Department, Medchal District, against respondent

No.2 stating that a water plant is running by respondent No.2 without

there being any permission from the authorities and that ground water of

the colony is being misused, for which, concerned Magistrate was asked

to inspect the borewell and water plant, therefore, aggrieved by the same,

GAC, J Crlp_6246_2022

respondent No.2 filed the false complaint against the petitioner. Further,

it is also contended that the essential ingredients of the offence under

Section 324 of IPC are not at all attracted against the petitioner and that

the petitioner has no intention to hit the wife of respondent No.2.

Therefore, prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner

relied upon the judgment of the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

Ch.Pitchavadhanulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1, wherein it was

held as follows:

"8. When it came on record that the main intention of the petitioner-accused was to attack P. W.2. but not P. W. 1, and the evidence establishes. that P. W. 1 received minor injuries, this Court has to see what is the offence committed by the petitioner. In this context, this Court looked into Sections 323 and 324 of IPC.The essential ingredients to make out an offence under Section 324 IPC should be that there must be voluntarily causing hurt and also the required intention. In other words, to constitute an offence of voluntarily causing hurt, there must be complete correspondence between the result and the intention or the knowledge of the person who causes the said hurt. When we look into the case in those angles, it is clear that it was not the intention of the petitioner-accused to attack P. W. 1 and his intention was only to attack P. W. 2 because of some altercation or disputes between them. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner-accused cannot be said to have committed the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.

9. But from the evidence, It is clear that P. W. 1 received Injuries which are simple in nature. In those circumstances, this Court has to see what is the offence committed by the

2011 CrI.L.J.469

GAC, J Crlp_6246_2022

petitioner. The answer to the said question is section 337 IPC. reads as under:

"337 IPC-Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."

10. Here in this case, there is no complete correspondence between the result and the intention or the knowledge of the petitioner- accused, but there is hurt. Therefore, it shall be construed that it is an accident falling under Section 337 IPC. In fact, the lower appellate Court has discussed these aspects in proper perspective and came to the conclusion that the alleged offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is not made out. But, in my considered view, the lower appellate Court ought not have convicted the petitioner- accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, for the reason that the said act does not satisfy the required ingredients i.e. voluntarily causing hurt or intention. In fact, the lower appellate Court in its judgment has also discussed certain aspects with regard to the disputes between the petitioner-accused and the Management of the College wherein the petitioner-accused is working, and from that, it appears that the petitioner is not having cordial relationship with the Management of the College."

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended

that the police after due investigation filed charge sheet and it is not a fit

case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture.

Therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

7. As the offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 324 of

IPC, it would be appropriate to extract Section 324 of IPC for kind

perusal.

GAC, J Crlp_6246_2022

"324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.--Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

8. From a reading of the said Section, it is clear that in order to

attract Section 324 of IPC there must be a voluntary causing hurt and

also require intention.

9. On perusal of entire material on record, it is evident that the wife

of respondent No.2 sustained injuries and it may be an accident but the

entire allegation is that the petitioner has caused injury to wife of

respondent No.2 and it is for the trial Court to appreciate the facts and

material on record and to frame appropriate charge for the alleged

incident/offence and to try the case but not under Section 324 of IPC.

Therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the

petitioner as it is a matter of fact to be adduced by the trial Court.

10. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.