Telangana High Court
Sri Varikuti Malkondaiah vs State Of Telangana on 2 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1362 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition 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 4 in
CC.No.350 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First
Class Magistrate, at Nizamabad, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 354, 324, 323, 504 and 506 read
with Section 34 of 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 on 10.12.2021
at about 6PM stating that when she was in her house, one
Mala Kondareddy who is one of the villagers, bought a cow to
her house saying that the cow belongs to her and entered into
agricultural field, asking as to why she has not tied the cow
and abused her in filthy language. It is alleged that when the
respondent No.2 has asked him as to why he is abusing, he
caught her and beat with stick on shoulder and thighs. It is
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.1362 OF 2024
stated that the said incident was witnessed by her neighbors,
namely, Deepak, Basheer, Nithin and Santosh, who rescued
her. Thereafter, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 came to the place of
incident and beat respondent No.2 with hands.
3. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police investigated
the matter and on completion of due investigation, filed
chargesheet against the petitioners, arraying them as accused
Nos.1 to 4. Aggrieved thereby, this criminal petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri G.Subhash, learned counsel for
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4, Sri S.Ganesh, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent
No.1 - State, and Sri Srushman Reddy, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the
complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 against the
petitioners is based on false and baseless allegations. He
contended that the said false complaint was filed as a counter
blast to the earlier complaint lodged by petitioner No.3 and
that the same shows the mala fide intentions of respondent
No.2 and her intention to harass the petitioners. He asserted
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.1362 OF 2024
that on 10.12.2021 at about 4PM itself, the petitioner No.2
lodged a complaint stating that she came to know that some
persons were beating petitioner No.1 and when she rushed to
the place of incident, she found that respondent No.2 along
with her brother in law and on Sailu were beating petitioner
No.1 with sticks and also kicked him with legs and when her
husband rushed to rescue petitioner No.1, he was beaten as
well and later on the respondent No.2 herself beat petitioner
No.3 and thrown her on ground.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners raised suspicion over
the series of events that were based on the complaint lodged
by respondent No.2, whereunder, on receipt of the said
complaint on 10.12.2021 the Police registered FIR.No.320 of
2021 and on the very same day the Police recorded statements
of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and filed charge
sheet vide CC.No.350 of 2022. He lamented that it is
absolutely unknown as to how the statements of three
witnesses who are from different State was recorded by the
Investigating Officer.
7. Learned counsel for petitioners narrated the series of
events that took place at the time of incident in the version of
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.1362 OF 2024
petitioners and submitted that originally the respondent No.2
and her family members tied their cattle on road and the same
obstructed rights of others and also damaged public
properties. With regard to the said act of respondent No.2, the
petitioners also gave several complaints to local Government
and Police authorities but allegedly no action was taken
against the respondent No.2 and when due to the cattle of
respondent No.2, the crops of petitioners were destroyed and
they approached her for compensation, the petitioners were
allegedly attacked, due to which they lodged a complaint
before the Police against the respondent No.2 and two others.
Therefore, while contending that the respondent No.2 has
intentionally lodged false complaint against the petitioners
with an intention to harass them, prayed this Court to allow
the criminal petition by quashing the proceedings against the
petitioners.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent
No.2 strongly opposed the submissions made by learned
counsel for petitioners and contended that the petitioners
attacked respondent No.2 due to which she sustained
grievous bleeding injuries due to which she was taken to
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.1362 OF 2024
hospital as well for treatment. He asserted that the petitioners
were the ones who harassed and abused the respondent No.2
physically and verbally and ultimately attacked her. Therefore,
prayed this Court dismiss the criminal petition as the same
lacks merits.
9. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on
going through the material placed on record, it is noted that in
view of cattle and crop damage dispute between the parties, a
serious incident took place on 10.12.2021 during the course
of which both the parties attacked each other and sustained
injuries. On the one hand, the petitioners contend that the
respondent No.2 attacked them, and on the other hand, the
respondent No.2 contends that the petitioners attacked her.
10. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention 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. That being so, it is imperative to note the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.1362 OF 2024
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."
11. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, it is
imperative to note that the parties have filed cases and
counter cases against each other and a stern incident took
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.1362 OF 2024
place between the parties on 10.12.2021 due to which they
sustained injuries. That apart, as there are prima facie
averments made against the petitioners with regard to
attacking the respondent No.2 it cannot be said that there are
no triable issues in the case.
12. 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
petitioner/accused No.3 and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date:02.09.2024
PT
