Telangana High Court
Mohd Jaleel vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 8 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2582 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner,
who is arrayed as accused No.4, seeking to quash the
proceedings against him in CC.No.16233 of 2019, pending
on the file of the learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 324 and 506 read with 34 of
IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2
lodged a complaint on 17.07.2019 in Musheerabad Police
Station against the petitioner/accused No.4 and the police
registered FIR for the offences under Sections 324 read
with 34 of IPC. According to the complainant on
17.07.2019, while he was going to the house along with his
friends, meanwhile they stepped on water ditch on the road
and the water splashed on two people, upon which, they
picked up quarrel with him and later they beat him with
sticks and hands and injured him. The said two persons
also beat him and his friends Krishna and Vinay Sonu, due
to which they also received injuries. Based on the same,
police registered a case in Crime No.278/2019 on
17.07.2019 for the offence punishable under Section 324
read with 34 of IPC.
3. Originally, the case was registered against accused
Nos. 1 to 3 only and later, the name of the petitioner was
added as accused No.4 and Section 506 IPC was also
added in addition to Section 324 read with 34 IPC. While
filing the complaint, the complainant has not mentioned
the name of the petitioner. It is only after investigation, the
police filed charge sheet against the petitioner/accused
No.4 and others. The petitioner is not involved in the crime
and no allegations are levelled against him. There is no
reason to mention the name of the petitioner in the
complaint nor in the charge sheet or about his role in the
commission of the alleged offence. The complaint is nothing
but abuse of process of criminal law through motivated and
afterthought designs resorted to by the complainant. No
allegations are made in the complaint against the petitioner
and the complaint is made malafidely. As such, he prayed
the Court to quash the proceedings.
4. Heard Sri V.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.
5. Though notice was served on respondent No.2, none
appeared on his behalf.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
accused No.4 was added by the police while filing charge
sheet. Initially, the name of the petitioner was not included
in the FIR and there are no specific allegations levelled
against him in the complaint. As such,he prayed the Court
to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that
the truth or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint
cannot be decided at this stage and the same shall have to
be decided only after full-fledged trial. Therefore, he prayed
the Court to dismiss the petition.
8. Having regard to the rival submissions of both sides
and material available on record, as seen from the
statements of the witnesses, there are specific allegations
against this petitioner also. The statement of
complainant/LW-1 shows that this petitioner threatened
the victims and also quarreled with them. When there are
specific allegations against this petitioner it requires trial.
Therefore, at this stage, the proceedings against
petitioner/accused No.4 cannot be quashed.
9. 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
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
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."
10. 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.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial
and dispose of the C.C. as expeditiously as possible.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this
Criminal Petition shall also stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE K. SUJANA
Date:08.04.2024
ktm
