Telangana High Court
Manga Pavan Kalyan Kalyan vs The State Of Telangana on 21 October, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3697 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the
petitioner/accusedseeking to quash the proceedings againsthim in
Crime No.133 of 2024 of Karimnagar Rural Police
Station,Karimnagar District, registered for the alleged offences
punishable under Sections448, 354-B, 376 read with 511 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act (for short 'ACT')
2. The brief facts of the case are thatrespondent
No.2/defactocomplainantlodged a complaint before the Police against
the petitioner stating that on February 26, 2024, at 9:00 p.m., the
petitioner, a neighbor, consumed liquor and left. Later, around
midnight, he returned to her house, calling out to her as Uday. When
she opened the door, the petitioner dragged her out and took her to
his house, attempting to rape her. Thereafter, respondent No.2
screamed for help, and the said Uday came to her rescue. Basing on
the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.133 of
2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354-B, 376
read with 511 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act.
3. Heard Sri Joshi and Chillara, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Sri Sri Syed Musab, learned counsel for respondent No.2 as well
as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner,
respondent No.2 and Uday are friends and neighbors. On the date of
incident, respondent No.2 visited the house of the petitioner and that
Uday, who is in relationship with respondent No.2, became angry,
broke the window of the house of the petitioner, and stabbed him
multiple times. He further submitted that the petitioner was
hospitalized, and his father delayed reporting the incident. To
protect Uday, respondent No.2 filed a false complaint, alleging the
petitioner attempted to rape her. Therefore, the allegations leveled
against the petitioner are vague and baseless and prayed the Court
to quash the proceedings against him.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating
that the petitioner tried to commit rape on respondent No.2. The
allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature,which
requires trial,therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal
petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned
counsel and having gone through 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.
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,
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude
and cannot be seen in their true perspective
without sufficient material."
7. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand and considering the
submissions and record, the case is under investigation. No
statements have been recorded by police, and the alleged offenses
occurred at the house of Uday, requires further investigation.
However, at this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations leveled
against the petitioner are vague. Prima facie, the allegations against
the petitioner are serious and necessitate investigation.
8. 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 petitioner and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
9. Accordingly the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date:21.10.2024
PL
