Telangana High Court
L.P. Hemanth K Srinivasulu vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 9 July, 2024
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.983 of 2020
ORDER:
Petitioner is seeking to quash the proceedings against him in
C.C.No.3898 of 2019 on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Secunderabad, registered for the offences under Sections
448, 323 and 506 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Ch.Venu Kumar, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the record.
3. The complainant had lodged the complaint against the petitioner
herein stating that she was in relationship with the petitioner since 10 years
prior to the incident and when she insisted the petitioner to cut the
relationship with her, he got anger and on 13.10.2019 at 11.30 p.m., he
illegally trespassed into her house and beat her and her son with hands
causing bleeding injury on her head. It is further alleged in the complaint
that on the intervening night of 14/15-10-2019 at around 01.30 p.m., the
petitioner again went to the house of complainant and when she went on to
the terrace due to fear, the petitioner dragged her son and beat him with
hands, due to which, her son sustained bleeding injuries on his nose. The
2 JS, J
petitioner had further threatened the complainant and her son with dire
consequences.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the contents
of the complaint does not disclose the ingredients of offences alleged and
that he was not at all involved in the alleged offences. It is further
contended that the complainant has agreed to compromise the matter and
also requested the trial Court to refer the matter to Lok Adalat for
settlement, but later on filed memo praying the Court not to refer the case
to Lok Adalat, which is not permissible. It is his case that once the case
has been agreed to be compromised, the complainant cannot go back, but,
in this case, after filing the petition for compounding the offences and
when the case was referred to Lok Adalat, the petitioner has filed a memo
on 09.12.2019 praying the Court not to transfer the case to Lok Adalat,
which is illegal.
5. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for petitioner has
relied on the judgment of the then composite High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in N.Raja Malla Reddy v. State of A.P. and another 1, wherein,
it is held that the moment that the complainant files a petition for
compounding the offence before the Court, it has the immediate effect of
acquittal of the case. That is the reason why the composition once effected
(2005) 2 ALT (Cri.) 310
3 JS, J
cannot be withdrawn notwithstanding the fact that the terms of the
compromise having been carried out or not. This judgment is not
applicable to the facts of the present case, as, in this case, the complainant
as well as the accused have merely filed the petition before the trial Court
seeking to refer the matter to Lok Adalat for compounding the offences.
However, before passing orders by the Lok Adalat, the complainant has
filed the memo seeking the Court not to refer the matter to the Lok Adalat.
Mere filing of petition seeking to refer the matter to Lok Adalat does not
amount to filing the petition for compounding the offences and it is open
for the party filing such petition, to withdraw the same prior to passing
orders in the Lok Adalat.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for
Respondent No.2, on the other hand, contended that since the complainant
has made specific allegations against the petitioner with regard to his
attacking the complainant and her son on 13.10.2019 at 11.30 p.m. and
again on 14/15-10-2019 at around 01.30 p.m., proceedings against the
petitioner cannot be quashed at this stage, as the truth or otherwise of the
matter can be determined after a full-fledged trial. Accordingly, they
prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. The contents of the complaint disclose that when the complainant
had asked the petitioner to stay away from her, the petitioner grew wild
4 JS, J
and beat her and her son on 13.10.2019 at 11.30 p.m. and again on 14/15-
10-2019 at around 01.30 p.m. As per charge sheet, the medical certificates
issued by the Medical Officer of Gandhi Hospital disclose that the
complainant and her son sustained simple injuries. It is further to be seen
that in the memo filed by the complainant praying the Court not to send the
case to Lok Adalat, she stated that she has got strong evidence and material
against the petitioner herein to prove her case before the Court. Since the
contents of the complaint prima facie are supported by the medical
evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a matter to be
adjudicated after full-fledged trial and it is not a fit case to be quashed at
this stage.
7. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date:09.07.2024
Ksk
