The High Court · 2025

of Telangana. Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court ...Respondent No.1/State 2 Sree Valli Sarva, D/o Subrahmanyam. Wo. Ambareesh Jonnavittula. Age 29 years, Occ. Software Engineer, R/o. Block No.C-105. Emeraid Heights. Annojiguda, Pocharam Municipality, Ghatkesa r-Mandal, lvledchal- lMalkajgin- District, Hyderabad -500088, Nio H.No 22-23. Polhepdli, IVlachilipatnam. Andhra Pradesh. ..Respondent No.2/Defacto Com plainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings rn respect of the petitioner rn CC No. 1550 of 2024 on the file of the V Additional lt/etropolitan IVlagrstrate. IVIEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, UPPAL AT LB NAGAR in the anterest of lustice and consequently direct the V Additional lt/etropolitan Magistrate, IVIEDCHAL IUALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, UPPAL AT LB NAGAR to dispose of the case in CC No 1550 of 2024 within a period of 12 months. l.A. NO: 6 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petrtion, the High Court may be pleased to Stay on all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner in CC.No.1550 of 2024 on the file of the V MIr/], tvledchal lt/lalkajgirr District at L.B.Nagar pending disposal of the above Cnminal Petition. This Petition comjng on for hearing, upon perusing Grounds of Cr minal petition and upon hearing Mr S SRTDHAR Aclvocate for the pehtioner and Smt Assistant Public P.osecutor on behalf of the Respondent No appeafed for the Resitondent No 2. lh: IVlemorandum of rh3 ai'g uments of Iiha lini Saxena, the I a.d The Court made the following: ORDER .*-_".N THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.430 of 2025 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedtngs against the petitioner-accused in CC No.155O o't 2024 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B. Nagar, for the offence under Section 324 IPC

2. Heard Mr.Singireddi Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is facing false allegations that he has committed an offence under Section 324 lPC. His contention is that to attract the offence under Section 324 lPC, a weapon should be used in the commission of offence and the petitioner must have caused grievous injuries on the victim and that in the present case, the injury certificate does not disclose any grievous injury and further no weapon is seized. Hence, a false case is registered against the petitioner herein. He further submitted that the de facto complainant and the petitioner are wife and husband and that present case is -twETD, J Crl.P- No 430 of 2025 l filed with an rrlterior motive and malafide intentron, and prayed to quash the proceedings 4 l_earned Assistant public prosecutor las submitted that the FIR was registered under Section 323 lpC, brrt after obtaining It4LC and during the course of investigation, it was ericited that the petitioner has beat the de facto complainant and hit rer head against wall, which att-acts the offence under Section 32.1 lpc and hence. prayed to drsmiss the petition.

5. Perused the record 6 The record discloses that based on thr: contents of the complaint, FrR was registered for the offence urrcier section 323 lPC. The recitals of the charge sheet point out r;ausing of simple injuries, but. however, the charge sheet is filed urrrjer Section 324 IPC The IVILC which form a part of record also discioses only simple injuries Thus. a wrong provisron of raw is, quoted in the charge sheet The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that sectron 324 rpc does not get attracted which is falsely filed against hrm and that the charge sheet itself is false and thus, the proceedings should be quashed. But, the arllegations have to be looked into and once the allegations reveal a prima facie case ETD,J Crt.P- No.430 o12025 against the petitioners, the case is registered and investigated Even if the charge sheet is flled by quoting a wrong provision of law, the trial court can examine and adjudicate as per the evidence adduced before it. The contents of the complaint point out that the petitioner has banged the head of the de facto complainant against the wall. Thus, the prima facie incident of beating the de facto complainant is disclosed

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the yudgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anwarul Haq v. The State of Uttar Pradeshl, wherein it was held that: "Section 324 provides that "Whoever except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal" can be convicted rn terms of Section 324. The expression "an instrument, which used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death" should be construed with reference to the nature of the instrument and not the manner of its use. What has to be established by the prosecution is that the accused voluntarily caused hurt and that such hurt ' AtR 2oo5 scc 2382 ) i ', ;'"*,!I \i.' - + ETD.J C.l-P- No-430 ot 2o25 was caused by means of an instrument refe:rred to in this Sec-ron." B. ln tre said case, the trral was concludei and the trial courl has convicteo the accused and on evaluating the t:vidence, the said observation vras made by the Apex Court. Hcr,t,ever, in the said case, no lenience was shown towards the sent:rtce rmposed and the appeal was dismissed. ln the present case the trial is yet to begin.

9. Therefore, since the occurrence of the, inciden t is prima facie made otrt, the truth in the said allegations can be culled out during the coulse of trial and hence the proceeCings cannot be quashed. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court.

10. Ar;cordingly, the Criminal petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner bef're the triar court provided he rs represented by a counsel before the trial court on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial court whenever his presence rs required during the course of trial Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-I(.BHAVANI SWAMY ASfl,STANT REG ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ \ I \ i SECTION OFFICER ilH"X" ilSil i:iijfl![",ti'$'ft ,!3y''"'" cum " AJGJ, Markajgiri- I To,

2. The Statron House Offrcer. Pocharam lT Corridor Police Station, Rachakonda 3 One CC to l\,4 r S. SRIDHAR. Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies I ! HIGH COURT DATED: 1311012025 ORDER CRLP.No.430 of 2025 1 I -1 -, , ,;t4 rt- ) ) o ?, 0E tl0\l il6 .\- t o6,sr,^ rcrr(-9 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Dir;posed of. ll h'-