Amaraboina Veerababu vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 4299 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 4299 Tel
Judgement Date : 5 November, 2024

Telangana High Court

Amaraboina Veerababu vs The State Of Telangana on 5 November, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
        CRIMINAL PETITION No.5724 OF 2024
ORDER:

This Criminal Petitions is filed under 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 25 in

Crime No.86 of 2024 on the file of Madlachervu Police Station,

Suryapet District, registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 307, 326, 447, 425, 506 read with 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'); Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii) of

SC/STs (POA) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act') and Section 156(3)

of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C').

2. The brief facts of the case are thaton 02.01.2024 at about

09:30 a.m., the accused persons besides illegally trespassing

into the house of respondent No.2 and attacking respondent

No.2 and his family members, they also abused the wife of

respondent No.2 in filthy language. It is stated that son of

respondent No.2 already filed complaint against accused Nos.3

and 9 for the relief of recovery of money vide O.S.No.185 of 2023

and O.S.No.186 of 2023 on the file of Junior Civil Judge,

Huzurnagar and the criminal case is also registered against

accused Nos.3 and 9 vide STC Nos.1256 of 2022, 1254 of 2022,

SKS,J

1255 of 2022 and respondent No.2 also filed a complaint

against accused Nos.23, 24 vide S.C.No.242 of 2016 and against

accused Nos.5, 9 and 12 vide S.C.No.38 of 2023. Later, when

the Police have not initiated any action in the above cases,

respondent No.2 filed complaint before the Magistrate under

Section 200 of Cr.P.C and upon direction of the Magistrate, the

Medlachervu Police registered a case in Crime No.86 of 2024 for

the alleged offences.

3. Heard Sri B.Muralidhar, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State as well as

Sri Yadaiah Boddupally, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners are no way concerned with the alleged offences. He

further submitted that respondent No.2 and his family members

are habitual complainants and were lodging the complaint with

false allegations against the villagers. Hence, he prayed the

Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the

proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2

opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners

SKS,J

stating that there are serious allegations against the petitioners,

which requires trial and prayed the Court to dismiss the

Criminal Petition.

6. In view of the rival submissions made by both the learned

counsel, this Court has perused the material available on

record. Admittedly, respondent No.2 and his son filed several

criminal cases against the accused persons and other villagers.

It is noteworthy that accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 9 abused the

wife of respondent No.2 in filthy language in her caste name and

accused Nos.1 and 9 bet her. The main allegation against the

petitioners is that they not only trespassed into the house of

respondent No.2 but also humiliated respondent No.2 and beat

his wife by abusing her in the name of caste. That apart there

are criminal cases pending between the parties filed by both the

sides. In the present case, averments in the complaint specific

over acts are against accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 9 and except

stating the names of other accused there are no specific

allegations against other accused. 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 as alleged by the Police.

SKS,J

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. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid

down by the Apex Court in Surendra Kori (supra), since except

that accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 9 abused and mercilessly beaten

the wife of respondent No.2 which requires trial, whereas there

are no specific allegations against other accused i.e, accused

Nos.4, 5 to 8 and 10 to 25, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the proceedings against petitioner Nos.4, 5 to 8 and

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

SKS,J

10 to 25/accused Nos.4, 5 to 8 and 10 to 25 are liable to be

quashed and the proceedings against petitioner Nos.1 to 3, 6

and 9/accused No.1 to 3, 6 and 9 shall be continued.