Telangana High Court
Keerthi Suresh vs The State Of Telangana on 4 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11616 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.609 of 2018,
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 332 and 228
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto
complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Jangaon Police
Station, Warangal District, against the petitioner
stating that while he was attending his duty and calling the parties
to the Court, three persons entered into the Court hall pertaining
to C.C.No.367 of 2015. One of the them went near to Magistrate
and argued with the Magistrate about his case. After the Bench
Clerk was given next date of adjournment, respondent No.2 said
them to go outside the Court hall and called another party, but the
petitioner beat him on his cheek. Basing on the said complaint,
the Police registered a case in Crime No.231 of 2018 for the
offences punishable under Sections 332 and 228 of the IPC and
SKS,J
after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet before the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon, Warangal District.
3. Heard Smt. B. Rachana, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State
and Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
incident was occurred in the Court hall and the concerned officer
has to lodge the complaint, but it is not given by the officer.
Further, the allegation against the petitioner is very vague, as such,
prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against him.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the incident was occurred in the Court hall and the
allegations clearly show that the petitioner committed an offence
and since there are allegations against the petitioner, quashing of
proceedings at this stage does not arise, as such, prayed the Court
to dismiss the petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the
learned counsel and having gone through the material available on
record, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the
SKS,J
Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint prima
facie shows that it constitute the offence as alleged by the Police.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a
Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in
several judgments, held that the inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though
wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and
with caution. The High Court, under Section 482
Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a
prima facie decision in a case where the entire
facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when
the evidence has not been collected and
produced before the Court and the issues
involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide
magnitude and cannot be seen in their true
perspective without sufficient material."
8. As seen from the record, it is to be noted that the petitioner
slapped respondent No.2 without any reason and the said incident
was occurred in the Court hall. The statement of witnesses and the
averments in the complaint also reveal the same. Since there are
allegations against the petitioner, which require trial, at this stage,
it cannot be said that the allegations are baseless.
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
9. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh
(supra), this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition
to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As the case
is of the year 2018, the trial Court is directed to dispose of
C.C.No.609 of 2018, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within
a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this Order.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 04.04.2024
SAI
