Telangana High Court
Goli Ajay vs The State Of Telangana on 19 March, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2842 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the
petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings
against them in S.C.No.3 of 2023 on the file of the Assistant Sessions
Judge at Vemulawada (for short 'trial Court') (previously P.R.C.No.29 of
2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Vemulawada),
registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w. 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent-State. Notice sent to respondent No.2-de facto complainant
was returned with an endorsement 'refused'. Refusal of notice amounts
to service of notice. Inspite of the same, there is no representation on
behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.07.2020, at
06.00 a.m., in the morning, the de facto complainant was proceeding on
her Scooty from her house at Shivarampet Village to attend her duties at
Shanivarampet. In the meantime, when she reached the outskirts of
Satrajpally Village at 07.00 a.m., the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2
2 JS, J
followed her on their motorcycle, dashed her Scooty with their motorcycle
and attacked her with sticks with an intention to kill her, due to which, she
suffered injuries on her head, face and leg and became unconscious.
Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.586 of 2020 was
registered against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2. After completion
of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned Magistrate.
The same was taken cognizance and numbered as P.R.C.No.29 of 2021.
Thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court and
re-numbered as S.C.No.3 of 2023 for the aforesaid offence.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are innocent and have been falsely
implicated in the case. The alleged incident had occurred on 06.07.2020,
however, the present complaint was lodged on 21.11.2020 i.e., after a
delay of more than four months and the reason for such delay remained
unexplained, which would raise suspicion about the authenticity of the
case. He further submits that the de facto complainant has earlier lodged
a complaint, dated 02.11.2020 against her husband, mother-in-law and
the petitioners herein-accused Nos.1 and 2, who are family members of
her husband, stating that they harassed her demanding additional dowry.
The said complaint was registered as a case in Crime No.261 of 2020.
According to the de facto complainant, the alleged incident in the present
crime has occurred on 06.07.2020. However, there is no mention about
3 JS, J
the same in her complaint, dated 02.11.2020. Hence, it is clear that the
incident of petitioners attacking the de facto complainant as alleged in
her complaint has not at all occurred. He further submits that the de facto
complainant has lodged another complaint against her husband and the
same was registered as a case in Crime No.265 of 2021. It is further
contended that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners
and the ingredients of offence under Section 307 of IPC are not made
out. There are matrimonial disputes between the parties and only to
wreck vengeance and with a view to spite them due to personal grudge,
the de facto complainant has lodged various criminal complaints against
her husband and his family members, including the petitioners herein.
5. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the
judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and
others 1, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
The following categories of cases can be stated by way of
illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or
the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be
exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report
or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused;
1992 SCC (Cri) 426
4 JS, J
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code;
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused;
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without
an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code;
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.
Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and
the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet
are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the
5 JS, J
proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the
petition.
7. For the sake of convenience, Section 307 of IPC is extracted
hereunder:
"307. Attempt to murder.--
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and
under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death,
he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is
caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable
either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is
hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.-- When any person offending under
this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may,
if hurt is caused, be punished with death. Llustrations
(a)A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such
circumstances that, if death ensued. A would be guilty of
murder. A is liable to punishment under this section.
(b)A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender
years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the offence
defined by this section, though the death of the child does not
ensue.
(c)A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not
yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has
committed the offence defined in this section, and if by such
firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by
the latter part of the first paragraph of this section.
(d)A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and
mixes the same with food which remains in A's keeping; A has
not yet committed the offence defined in this section. A places
the food on Z's table or delivers it to Z's servant to place it on
Z's table. A has committed the offence defined in this section."
8. In the judgment of Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi 2, at paragraph
No.8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"8. In criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the Court is
to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the
report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant
AIR 2007 SC 3234
6 JS, J
to make deliberation upon the complaint and to make
embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the
chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to
be presented before the Court at the earliest instance. That is
why if there is delay in either coming before the police or before
the Court, the Courts always view the allegations with suspicion
and look for satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is
formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case."
9. As seen from the record, it is evident that the de facto complainant
has lodged three complaints against her husband and his family
members, including the petitioners herein. Though the alleged incident
had occurred on 06.07.2020, the present complaint was lodged on
21.11.2020 i.e., after a delay of more than four months. There is no
proper or satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint,
hence, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case, in view of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilawar Singh's case
(supra).
10. It is apparent on the face of the record that there are matrimonial
disputes between the parties and the de facto complainant has lodged
three complaints against her husband and his family members, including
the petitioners herein. The alleged incident in the present crime had
occurred on 06.07.2020, however, there is no mention about the same in
the earlier complaint lodged by the de facto complainant on 02.11.2020,
which creates a doubt with regard to the genuineness of the complaint
and the occurrence of the alleged incident. If at all really such an incident
had taken place, the de facto complainant would have mentioned about
7 JS, J
the same in her earlier complaint, dated 02.11.2020. Therefore, it
appears that only to settle personal scores, the de facto complainant has
lodged the present complaint belatedly against the petitioners herein, in
view of the matrimonial disputes between them. Moreover, the charge
sheet does not disclose any motive on the part of the petitioners-accused
Nos.1 and 2 to commit the murder of the victim. The alleged confession
of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 did not lead to any recovery of
material objects like sticks or motorcycle used in the commission of
offence, as such, the confessional statements do not have any weight in
the eye of law. This lacuna, while conducting the investigation creates
reasonable doubt with regard to the case of the prosecution.
11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion
that the instant criminal proceeding is maliciously instituted by the
de facto complainant with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance with
a view to spite the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 to exercise personal
grudge, as there are matrimonial disputes between them. Hence, the
present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters
highlighted in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), as such, the continuation of
criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2
amounts to sheer abuse of process of the law and the same are liable to
be quashed.
8 JS, J
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the
proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.3 of
2023 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge at Vemulawada (for
short 'trial Court') (previously P.R.C.No.29 of 2021 on the file of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate at Vemulawada).
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 19.03.2025
rev
