Telangana High Court
Kethavath Vashya vs The State Of Telangana on 3 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10085 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 3 in
C.C.No.556 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
of the First Class, Jadcherla, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 447 and 324 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de
facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Midjil
Police Station, Mahabubnagar District stating that his father's
brothers totally four in number have joint property of
agricultural land to an extent of Ac.3.23 guntas, situated at
Peddagundla Thanda. There are land disputes between the
petitioners and respondent No.2 and the civil case is pending
before the Court below at Kalwakurthy. On 26.06.2022, the
petitioners trespassed into the subject land and tilling the land.
When the father and mother of respondent No.2 questioned as
to why they are tilling in their land, the petitioners beat them
with hands, assaulted with stones and caused injuries. Basing
SKS,J
on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime
No.176 of 2022 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.556 of
2022 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla.
3. Heard Sri Siripangi Narssimha, 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. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none
appeared on his behalf.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners are innocent and the allegations leveled against them
are false and baseless. He further submitted that the alleged
incident took place on 25.06.2022, but in the charge sheet, it is
mentioned that the date of occurrence of offence is 26.06.2022.
He further submitted that the matter is purely civil in nature
and there are disputes between the petitioners and respondent
No.2. As respondent No.2 was unable to face the trial, he
converted the civil case into the criminal case. Learned counsel
further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of
judgments held that a criminal complaint should be quashed
when the matter is essentially civil in nature and has been given
a cloak of criminal offence as the continuation of such
proceedings will amount to an abuse of process of law.
SKS,J
Therefore, the allegations leveled against the petitioners are
vague and prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against
them.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are
serious in nature and further, there are case and counter case,
which require trial, therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the
petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the
learned counsel and 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
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
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. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is to be
noted that there are disputes between the petitioners and
respondent No.2. The prime contention of learned counsel for
the petitioners is that the offence took place on 26.06.2022, but
the medical certificate i.e., requisition for examination of
wounded person, issued on 25.06.2022, therefore, the
complaint itself is not maintainable. Further, the genuineness
of the said document cannot be decided in this petition without
examining the witness, who issued the said document. A bare
perusal of the record reveals that the mother of respondent No.2
received injuries, as such, it cannot be said that no alleged
offence took place at the scene of offence. Further, there are
case and counter case between the petitioners and respondent
No.2. Therefore, the allegations against the petitioners
require trial. As such, at this stage, it cannot be said that
SKS,J
the petitioners are no way concerned with the allegations
leveled against them and the same will be decided after
full-fledged trial only.
9. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid
down in Surendra Kori (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: 03.06.2024
SAI
