Telangana High Court
Rondla Deepi Chandan Rondla Deepu Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 4 October, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1728 of 2024
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 Crime
No.172 of 2023 of Sirikonda Police Station, Nizamabad District,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354D,
323, 448 and 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de
facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police stating
that petitioner No.1 is following his daughter in the name of
love, as such, he warned him not to follow his daughter, but he
did not listen to his words and used to roam around his house.
It is further stated that on 12.11.2023, the wife of respondent
No.2 informed him through phone that petitioner No.1 stood
near his house and looking at his house, as such, respondent
No.2 went near petitioner No.1 and asked him why are you
looking at our residence, due to which, petitioner No.1 attacked
respondent No.2 with knife and petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are
SKS,J
the brothers of petitioner No.1, trespassed into his house and
damaged the window glass and beat respondent No.2 with
hands. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a
case in Crime No.172 of 2023 for the offences punishable under
Sections 354D, 323, 448 and 427 read with 34 of IPC.
3. Heard Sri M. Phanindra Pavan Kashyap, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri D. Arun
Kumar, learned Additional 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
allegations leveled against the petitioners are vague and
baseless and that the same do not constitute the offence as
alleged by respondent No.2. Further, initially, petitioner No.1
lodged a complaint before the Police and as a counter blast,
respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint. Respondent
No.2 is having an intention to kill petitioner No.1, as such, he
filed the present complaint with false allegation. Therefore, he
prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the
petitioners.
SKS,J
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are
serious in nature, which requires trial, as they trespassed into
the house of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 tried to kill
respondent No.2. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the
criminal petition.
6. At this stage, it is imperative 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 would prima facie show
that the offence as alleged by the Police constitutes. Further,
while dealing with the petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration the avermetns
made in the complaint and the statements of the witnesses and
if the averments made therein do not constitute any offence, as
alleged against the accused persons, then the proceedings
against the accused are liable to be quashed.
7. Furthermore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, wherein in
paragraph No.14, held as under:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
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 the light of the submissions made by both the learned
counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it
appears that there is case and counter case pending between
the petitioner and respondent No.2. Admittedly, respondent
No.2 questioned petitioner No.1 as to why he is harassing and
following his daughter. On questioning the same, petitioner
No.1 took a knife and attacked respondent No.2, due to which,
he received injuries as he also stabbed him with knife. Further,
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 trespassed into the house and damaged
the window glass and beat respondent No.2. The complaint of
respondent No.2 shows that he also revealed that he stabbed
the petitioner herein. Further, the statement of witnesses also
reveals the same. Further, it is noticed that the investigation is
not yet completed. Since there are allegations against the
SKS,J
petitioners, which are supported by the statement of witnesses,
quashing of proceedings at this stage, does not arise. Learned
counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Delhi
High Court in Karunkar Patra Vs. State 2 whereunder, in
paragraph Nos.12 and 13 it is observed as follows:
"12. Therefore, quashing of criminal proceedings is called for only
in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is
frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the
complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has
been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to
quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of
the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the
case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a
reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations
therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the
ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no
justification for the High Court to interfere (See also Kamal Shivaji
Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra [Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v.
State of Maharashtra, (2019) 14 SCC 350 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 846]
).
13. A perusal of the material-on-record in the present case, in this
Court's considered opinion, reveals that the contents of the FIR are
sketchy in nature and are void of any specifics regarding the
offences which have allegedly been committed. While this Court is
cognizant of the fact that an FIR is not an encyclopedia which
must disclose all facts and details, however, in the instant case, a
bare reading of the impugned FIR No. 89 of 2021 prima facie
indicates that the FIR arises out of bald allegations and
contradictory statements."
(2022) 1 HCC (DEL) 314
SKS,J
9. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner admits
about the incident and there are cases and counter cases as
well.
10. In view of the above discussion 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.
11. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However,
as the complaint is of the year 2023, the Investigating Officer is
directed to conclude the investigation, as expeditiously as
possible, and file charge sheet before the concerned Court.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 04.10.2024
Sai
