Telangana High Court
Korna Alexander vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.24 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filedunder Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash
the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in
C.C.No.487 of 2022 pending on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Parkal, registered for the offence
punishable under Sections290, 323, 324, 506 read with 34of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent
NO.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the
Parkal Police Station, stating that his land is adjacent to the
land of petitioner Nos.1 and 4 and keeping in mind the
scenario that in view of chilli sprouts destruction a penalty
was paid, on 18.03.2022 the petitioner No.1 has spit on him.
It is alleged that after exchange of words, the petitioner No.1
abused him in filthy language and beat with hands ; petitioner
No.2 who is wife of petitioner NO.1 beat him with sandals and
later the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 beat him with hands and
kicked with legs and threatened that they would kill him.
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.24 OF 2024
3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police investigated the
matter and on completion of due investigation a charge sheet
was filed against the accused persons for the offences
punishable under Sections 353, 225 read with Section 34 of
IPC. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for
petitioners, and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State. No
representation on behalf of respondent No.2/de facto
complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there
is no doubt that civildisputes prevail between the petitioner
No.4 and the respondent No.2 as their agricultural lands are
adjacent to each other. He contended that petitioner No.2 is
sister of petitioner No.4 and petitioner NO.1 is his brother in
law and as petitioner NOs.1 and 2 visited the house of
petitioner No.4, the respondent NO.2 took this as opportunity
to implicate the family of petitioner NO.4 in this false case with
an intention to convert the existing civil dispute into criminal
dispute. He asserted that the respondent NO.2 has created
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.24 OF 2024
false and fabricated medical documents and has also managed
to put the petitioners under political influence. Therefore,
prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the
petitioners.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submitted that the averments of the complaint would show
that the petitionersabused the respondent No.2 and also beat
him with hands and legs. He contended that there are serious
allegations against the petitioners, as such, the matter
requires trial. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the
petition.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on
going through the material placed on record, it is pertinent to
note that 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
against the accused persons, as alleged by the Police.
8. That being so, it is imperative to note the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.24 OF 2024
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."
9. In the present case, there is no disagreement between
the parties with regard to the pending civil disputes pertaining
to their respective agricultural lands. The complaint
averments and the statements of the witnesses would
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.24 OF 2024
revealthatpetitioner No.1 has spit on respondent No.2 and
after exchange of words, the petitioner No.1 abused him in
filthy language and thereafter, the petitioners/accused beat
him with hands and sandals and kicked with legs and also
threatened to kill him. The allegations leveled against the
petitioners are with regard to abuse in filthy language and
also beating with hands and kicking with legs. Further, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Das Vs.
State of Jharkhand and Others 2 has observed that the
genuineness of the allegations raised is an issue to be tried
and the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., cannot delve into such factual controversies so as to
quash the proceedings.
10. In view of the above discussion and having regard to the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Madhya Pradesh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the
matter requires full-fledged trial and there are no merits in the
criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
(2011) 12 SCC 319
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.24 OF 2024
11. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date:06.06.2024
PT
