Telangana High Court
Amit Sanghi vs The State Of Telangana on 23 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8581 of 2023
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.7437
of 2021, on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences
punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short 'the IPC') and Section 25 (1b) (a) and Section 30 of the
Arms Act, 1959.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto
complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Banjara Hills
Police Station, Hyderabad, against the petitioner/accused
stating that on 24.03.2020 at about 20:30 hours the petitioner,
who is her husband, entered into her house in drunken
condition and said that he wants to stay with her son. It is
further stated that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were
separated three years back and respondent No.2 filed Domestic
Violence Case against the petitioner and also a case to
confiscate his weapons and guns for misusing and threatening.
SKS,J
Petitioner entered into the house and asked his son to keep the
gun in his locker but he got terrified and called respondent
No.2, who asked the petitioner to leave her son at that
movement, but the petitioner was not ready to leave her son.
Therefore, respondent No.2 called her brother to stop the
petitioner but the petitioner refused by stopping him and
abused respondent No.2 and her brother and threatened them
with dire consequences. Later, the son of respondent No.2 tried
to snatch the gun from the petitioner, but the petitioner refused
to leave the bag and respondent No.2 with the help of people
around them took the bag in which a loaded gun was there. It
is further stated that the petitioner is the President of Telangana
Rifle Association and a Member of National Rifle Association.
Under the guise of his profession, he is misusing the weapons
and his Power. The petitioner is having ten to twelve highly
dangerous weapons in his residence. Basing on the said
complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.226 of 2020,
for the offences punishable under Section 506 of IPC and
Sections 25 (1b) (a) and 30 of the Arms Act and after completion
of investigation, they filed charge sheet before the III Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.
SKS,J
3. Heard Sri K. Rajashekar, 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 Malavika Bhadriraju, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
allegations made in the complaint is that he is in illegal
possession of arms. He further submitted that the petitioner is
a licensed gun holder to hold the gun. Therefore, the offence
alleged under Arms Act does not attract. There are disputes
between the petitioner and respondent No.2. The petitioner
went to the house of respondent No.2 to see his son and he was
not threatened by the petitioner. He gave the gun to his son to
keep it in the Almara, no offence took place except altercation
between the petitioner and respondent No.2, as such, prayed the
Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that since there are serious allegations against the
petitioner, quashing of proceedings at this stage does not arise
and it requires trial. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the
petition.
SKS,J
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
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 is in drunken condition and when the son of
respondent No.2 was terrified and tried to snatch the gun, the
petitioner refused to leave the bag and loaded the gun and used
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
the same against the brother of respondent No.2. Since there
are several allegations against the petitioner, which requires
trial, at this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations are
baseless. Therefore, 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.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As the
case is of the year 2021, the trial Court is directed to dispose of
C.C.No.7437 of 2021, as expeditiously as possible.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 23.04.2024
SAI
