Telangana High Court
Elugoya Arun vs The State Of Telangana on 29 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6658 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.) to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in
P.R.C.No.45 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 read with 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C').
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto
complainant lodged a complaint before the Police,
Chennaraopet Police Station, Warangal (rural) District against
the petitioners stating that on 07.04.2022 afternoon around
14:00 hrs, regarding the divorce issue of his younger
daughter, a argument took place between him and petitioner
No.1. During the said arguments, petitioner No.1 abused
respondent No.2 in filthy language and threatened him to kill
if he does not send his wife to join in conjugal life. Both
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 lodged their complaints
respectively at Narsampet Police Station. Later, while
respondent No.2 was in the house of his sister, petitioners
SKS,J
came their with sticks, wooden pestle abused him and
attacked him and the Family members of respondent No.2
tried to stop the petitioners. In the meantime, when the
villagers gathered there, the petitioners escaped by abusing
respondent No.2. Basing on the said complaint, the Police
registered a case in Crime No.62 of 2022 for the offences
punishable under Sections 307 and 506 read with 34 of the
I.P.C and after completion of the investigation, they filed
charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Narsampet.
3. Heard Sri D. Sudharshan, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1-State and P. Devender, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
complaint filed by respondent No.2 is a vexatious complaint as
the allegations levelled against the petitioners do not
constitute any offence. The injury certificate produced by
respondent No.2 shows that the injuries received by him are
simple in nature, therefore, the question of Section 307 of IPC
SKS,J
does not arise. He further submitted that the daughter of
respondent No.2 is filing false cases against the petitioners
despite there being settlement on 04.03.2022 for divorce.
Petitioner No.1 and the daughter of respondent No.2 have
agreed for the settlement. In clauses 4 and 5 of the said
settlement, it is clearly stated that both the parties agreed not
to file any complaint against each other. But, intentionally
after settlement, suppressing the facts made therein, not only
respondent No.2 but his daughter also filed complaints
against the petitioners to harass and blackmail them to
extract money. Therefore, prayed the Court to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are
serious in nature. Therefore, quashing of proceedings at this
stage does not arise and 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 Court has to see whether the averments in
SKS,J
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 as per
clause 4 of the said settlement, both the parties agreed not to
file any criminal cases against each other and therefore, the
settlement restraining legal proceedings is void settlement.
Therefore, such clause in settlement is no way helpful to the
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
petitioners. Further, the contention of the petitioners is that
the injuries are simple in nature, as such, Section 307 of IPC
is not applicable to the present case. Section 307 of IPC
prescribes punishment for attempt to murder. The statement
of witnesses shows that there is an intention to commit
murder of respondent No.2, as such, it cannot be said that
Section 307 of IPC is not applicable to the present case. At
this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled
against the petitioners are false and baseless.
9. In view of the above discussion and 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
petitioners and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
___________
K. SUJANA
Date: 29.04.2024
SAI
