Telangana High Court
Chiluveru Suresh vs The State Of Telangana on 2 May, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4319 OF 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking
quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.616 of 2024 on the file of
the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Juvenile Court),
Jangaon, against the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in C.C.No.616 of
2024 charged for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b),
324, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short 'I.P.C.').
3. I have heard Mr.P.Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel,
representing Mr.R.S.Sumith Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that the respondent No.2/de-
facto complainant and accused No.3 in the Calendar Case are
brothers and the accused No.1, the petitioner/accused No.2 are
sons of accused No.3. In the backdrop of civil disputes, on
2 NTR,J
17.01.2024, accused Nos.1 to 3 attacked the respondent No.2/de
facto complainant and his family members with rods, sticks and axe
and threatened them with dire consequences. Upon filing the final
result, the Court has taken cognizance of the offence under
Sections 294((b), 324 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and numbered
the Calendar Case 616 of 2024.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the de
facto complainant had foisted the false case to counter blast the
police report filed by the accused No.3 in C.C.No.616 of 2024 on
17.01.2024 contending that the respondent No.2/de facto
complainant herein along with his sons illegally trespassed into the
land owned and in possession of the accused No.3 with a tractor
and destroyed the standing crop, assaulted accused Nos.1 to 3 with
sticks and spades and threatened with dire consequences. On such
report, case in Crime No.14 of 2024 for the offences under Sections
447, 427, 290, 324, 506 read with 34 of IPC was registered against
the respondent No.2/de facto complainant herein and his sons.
That apart the petitioner/accused No.2 has successfully cleared the
Group-IV Service examinations conducted by the Telangana State
Public Service Commission and his final selection has been withheld
due to the pendency of the present criminal case, which was foisted
3 NTR,J
to jeopardize his employment prospects. He further asserted that
there is no material placed to prove the alleged offences and the
criminal proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive and to pressurize the accused No.3 in settling the pre-
existing civil disputes. Additionally, even by the police report no
ingredients to attract the alleged offences are being made out. On
the other hand, pleaded that the alleged overt acts of the petitioner
shall be considered as acts of private defence. Thus, prayed for
quashment of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
6. In support of his pleadings the learned counsel had cited the
judgments (i) Thavalingam and another v. State by Inspector of
Police - 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 33284; (ii) Hasin Jahan and others
v. State of West Bengal and another - 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 9113;
(iii) Sugurappa and others v. State of Karnataka - 2023 SCC
OnLine Kar 165; (iv) Manik Taneja and another v. State of
Karnataka and another - (2015) 7 SCC 423; (v) Ashok Kumar
Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another - (2017) 11 SCC 239;
(vi) Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited and another v.
Rajiv Dubey - (2009) 1 SCC 706; and (vii) Munshi Ram and others
v. Delhi Administration - 1967 SCC OnLine SC 80.
4 NTR,J
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
would submit that the allegations are obvious against the petitioner.
Further, the date of occurrence and the police report months ahead
of the recruitment process. As such the contention that to defeat the
petitioner's prospects of employment this case has been foisted is
clearly improbable. Further the pleading as to filing of counter case
itself is indicating the occurrence as alleged. The role of the
petitioner has to be ascertained in the investigation and the merits
would be concluded in a proper trial. Therefore, the petitioner's
claim for quashment of proceedings cannot be accepted and prayed
for dismissal of the petition.
8. I have perused the materials on record.
9. The pleadings of the petitioner are evidencing that on the self
same incident, Crime No.14 of 2014 was registered by the police on
the report by the accused No.3, in the present calendar case. This
is clear indication and implied admission as to occurrence on the
particular day. The pleading of the petitioner that the alleged overt
acts are only in exercise of the right to private defence to protect his
fundamental right is another factor pointing to the presence of the
accused during the incident. It is settled position that in a case and
counter case has to be determined in a simultaneous trial to
5 NTR,J
determine the aggressors and defenders/retaliators in settling the
criminal liability of the parties. Therefore, prima facie triable case is
apparent on the face of record.
10. Further, as per the record, the first information report filed by
the respondent No.2 was on the same day at 9 P.M., referring the
occurrence was at 10.30 A.M. On the other hand, the crime said to
have filed by the accused No.3 was dated 17.01.2024 at about
7 P.M. pleading the happening at about 10.00 A.M. Therefore, it is
clear that there is about eleven hour delay in filing the report by the
de facto complainant and in unison the accused No.3 lodged the
report with 9 hours delay. In the given facts and circumstances of
the case, solely basing on the delay in filing first information
statement, drawing conclusions would be unjustified, for the reasons
that the petitioner's relied complaint is also referring to the same
occurrence at 10 A.M. and the investigation is at initial stage.
11. Further the contest that to effect the employment prospects of
the petitioner this false case has been foisted is also found
unacceptable for the reasons, the case and counter case are
signifying the incident as per the petitioner the notification for the
employment was in December, 2024; whereas the issue and the
6 NTR,J
first information report was in the January, 2020. Therefore, even
drawing inference that only to defeat the employment opportunity
the respondent No.2/de facto complainant foisted the case in
January itself, is beyond imagination.
12. That apart, as per the charge sheet there was injured and
also eye witnesses of the persons who were in neighbouring lands
at relevant timeand the doctor's evidence who treated the injured.
Thus, in this alleged factual position, it cannot be held that the
criminal proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive to wreck vengeance against the accused on the personal
grudge.
13. So far as the authorities relied on by the petitioner are
concerned, in Thavalingam (first supra), the prosecution case that
the accused No.1 therein took a photograph of the victim while she
was taking bath, the High Court having considered the trial Court's
judgment of conviction and approval of the appellate Court judgment
by considering the delay in filing the first information report and lack
of material evidence has created serious doubt about the veracity of
the allegations, set aside the conviction.
7 NTR,J
14. In Hasin Jahan (second supra) it has been held that the delay
in first information report especially when there is existing counter
case while considering the allegation of verbal abuse, assault and
criminal intimidation, facts and circumstances shall be examined
carefully, especially when the first information was lodged after three
months to rule out malice and vendetta.
15. In Sugurappa (third supra) it has been held that in a case
where the allegations of house trespass, intentional insult and
criminal intimidation alleged, the Court by observing that the
complaint was filed as an off shoot of a civil dispute with
unexplained delay in lodging the first information report, quashed
the criminal proceedings.
16. In Manik Taneja (fourth supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
considering the situation for the offences under Sections 353, 503,
506 IPC held that mere criticism of a public official without threats or
use of force does not constitute an offence.
17. In Ashok Kumar Gupta (fifth supra) it has been held that while
considering the allegations of fraudulent action in filing the complaint
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the plea
that the accused had dishonestly filled in the blank cheque held that
8 NTR,J
where it is apparent that the action of the complainant and
acceptance of the appellant's proceedings under Section 138 of NI
Act, quashed the proceedings.
18. In Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited (sixth
supra) it has been held that where the criminal proceedings are
manifestly attended with mala fide or with an ulterior motive for
wreck vengeance with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge, the proceedings were quashed.
19. In Munshi Ram (seventh supra), it is a case where the dispute
regarding the possession of evacuee property which was sold in
public auction, the Court after analysing the facts and circumstances
held that the appellants therein to defend their possession was held
to be within the right to private defence, however observed that to
have possession and eviction, it is necessary to take up legal
proceedings in accordance with law and the burden of proof in case
of right of private defence lies on the accused.
20. In Imran Pratapgadhi (eighth supra) where the first
information report was posted on social media platform featuring a
poem, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that under Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution confers Fundamental Right to all its citizens to
9 NTR,J
freedom of speech and expression, the machinery which is part of
State including police are bound to abide by the Constitution and
noting the absence of evidence showing the social media post
incited hatred, quashed the proceedings in the crime stage.
21. For the variance in the situations examined in the authorities
and the facts and circumstances of the instant case are
distinguishable.
22. For the afore-noted reasons as the materials in the present
case are indicating prima facie case for trial, the prayer for
quashment of the proceedings remains unacceptable. Resultantly,
in the absence of merit for admission, this petition is liable to be and
is accordingly dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date:02.05.2025
ccm
