The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENI\/AS RAO CIrIN'{INAL PETITION No.602 of i.{,t21 ORDER: This (-riminal Pctition has been filed seeki,rg to quash the proceedings in C.C'.No.648 of 2020 on rhe file of t c Judiciat First Class Magistrate at Janqaon. Warangal District (pr..sently Jangaon District), whcrcin the petitioner u,as arrayed as ac, r. sed No.2, for the offences punishable under Sections324,290 an,l 506 rlw 34 of the Indiae Penal Code, 1860 (lor short 'lPC').

2. 'fhe case of the prosecution in brief is thar on 01.03.2019, the complainant lodged a complaint stating that hc r'.vns a printing press un<ler thc narne and style ol'Madhavi Printir,,i Press, located on Nehru Road at Gandhi Chowk, Jangaon. parl of road widening activity, the complainant was dismantlerl a portion of the press burlding up to 3.6 feet. Around l2:00 PM orr the same day, while discussing site boundary issucs rvith his neighhour, Koyyada Srinivas, an unrelated pcrson named'lhati Kurnar i, rrl his daughter, i.e., the lletitioner herein unnecessarily interfered. ;icked a quarrel, and abused the complainant and his famill, ln lilthy Ianguage During the quarrel, the petitioner physicall'y assaulted the -w 2 complainant, his daughter-in-law Madhavi, and his younger son Karthik by beating them with footwear. It is alleged that Thati Kumar, who belongs to the Harijan comrnunity, threatened to lalsely implicatc them in SC/ST atrocity case, if they responded. 'l'he cornplainant lurther stated that Thati Kumar had been roaming around the premises for the past. three days, creating a sense of f'ear. lt is also alleged that Koyyada Srinivas provoked Thati Kurnar by offering false promises of financial gain, thereby instigating the quarrel. By misusing tlie protection granted under caste larv, the accused persons allegedly intimidated, abused, and assaulted the complainant and his lamily members. Basing on the salre, present crime was registered.

3. Heard Mr.Karam Chendu Komireddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l and Mr.V.Uma Kanth Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.C.Ruthwik Reddy, learned cou nsel lor respondent No.2

4. Leamed counsel lor the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offences and has been lalsely implicated in the present case. l{e further submitted that the @ ,,i. 3 only alL:gation levelled against the petitioner i, that she beat respondent No.2 and his farnily mernbers rvith ri,otrvear. Even according to the allegations nradc in the complairrr. the petitioner has not voluntarily caused hurt using a darlc'ous weapon. 'Iherefbre, the ingredients of Scction 324 of ttre IPC are not attracted against the pctitioner. Hc lurthcr submitt,:c that the other offences levelled against thc pctitioner, namely, Srctions 290 and 506 of the lPC, are non-cognizable of-fences. 'l"c Investigating Officer, without obtaining prior permission fron the competent Magistrate as required under Section 155(2) c . the Code of Crirninal Procedure, 1913 (lbr shorl 'Cr.P.,.'') conducted investigation and filed a Iinal report and the sarne ir llross violation of provisions of Section 155(2) of the Cr,P r- Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitionel Lccused No.2 is clear abuse of the proccss of law and is liabte to be .rr ashcd

5. ln support of his contention, learned cr)Linsel for the petitioner relied upon the order passed by the erstu rile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Crl.P.No.2894 of 2015

6. Per contra, leamed counsel fbr respondent \o.2 submitted that accused No. 1, who is the ththcr of the petitiont ' rccused No.2, 4 had lodged a complaint against respondent No.2 on 01.03.2019, based on which, Crime No.96 ol 2019 was registered for the oflences punishable under Sections 323 rlw 34 of the IPC and Sections i(1Xr) and 3(1Xs) ol- the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled 'f ribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 20 l5 (for short 'SCiS'f (POA) Act, 20 l5'). He lurther submitted that even according to the allegations made in both complaints, there is no dispute regardrng the occurrcnce of the atleged incident on

01.03.2019. Even according to thc allegations made in the present complaint, the off'ence under Section 323 of the IPC is attracted, and not the offence under Section 324 of the IPC. Mere mentioning of an offence under Section 324 ol the IPC does not entitle the petitioner to seek quashing of the proceedings. Whether the petitioner has committed the oflences or not has to be revealed after full fledged trial. Basing on thc grounds which are pleaded in the present criminal petition, the pctitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings, and the same is liable to be dismissed

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also reiterated very same submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. - --:ii--=_v

8. Ilar ing considered thc rival submissiorrs made bv the respective parties and aftel perusal 01- the mat( r'al available on rccord, it rcveals that based on thc complaint lorlr:rl br,rcspontlcnt No.2, (lrirnc- No.c)-5 ol l0 l9 \\ as reqisterccl ar,..r rrr. t thc petitioncr and others. Upon perusal ol- tlte allegations ntarl. irr the complaint and the' charee shcet, it revcals that the only ir lr:gation levclled alrainst [hc pctitioncl is that shr. bcat respond,. lr No.],r[,lrcto cornplainant. rvith footwear. I'hc Investigating {)ilic-.eL tllcd thc Iinal report lbr ot'fences punishable under Scctir,:r:. 32.1. 190. and 506 rAr 34 olthc tPC

9. lt is very nluch relevant to extract Sectior, .124 o1'thc tlr(' q,hich reads as f,ollou,s: ''Stction 3 21-Volu rrturil.y t.uusing hurt b-t, lun\tr,tus teultons or me(ns: Ll/hoeyer, oicept iu tlk'(u.\e prolii(l fi, ," \ecliotr -131, voiunlurill cause,\ hlo-t by rrtc,dnt of ont itt.slrtttt,tt ,,)t- .\lk),)tiu!. slabbirtg or culting, or any i stt.tarcnt y,hich, usad ,t, .t veuprtrt of o.fJznca, is likely to cause dcath. rn- br ueons of firL t ott.t. ltcLtaLl sltlrstatrca, or by mecuts of ony poi,tort or uny corrut.sitt s l.,lant c. or hI rneans of un1, erplosi,,'e subsluncc' or bl, nteuns ctf uttl' .t,rl I !trce \ lti(lt il is tlelercrictu.; lo lhe hwncm bocl.y,to ltthalt, to.swtrllo*. .,t tt t.e(:ttit( uttt) lhe blood, or b1,, neans o.f un.r uninul. shull h trnislrcd r.ith inprist)tl rcnl of either descrqttio lot e ler y ltich tttt.. , , ,Uttl lo tltrL,t v,,r.s. or ',.ith fina. rtr y ith futtlt. .

10. The above provision clearly reveals that rr offence under Section 324 ol the IPC is attractecl only if thc acr u:red voluntarilv causes hurl by using a dangerous \veapoll- In thc r r-c oll han(l. rhc 6 petitioner/accused No.2 has not used any danget ous rveapon. Evcn according to the allegations made in the cornplaint and charge shcct, the petitior-rcr caused htrt't to lesponderrt No.2 by lootrvear. 'lhercfbrc. this Cotrrl is of the considercd vit'iv that thc ingredients of Section 324 ol thc tl'}C do not attract against the pctrtroner Il. Ilven according to the learned counsel tbr rcspondent No.2, basecl on the allegations tnade in r-he cornplaint, thc olfence undel' Section 323 of thc It']Cl is applicable. l{orvever, tlie investigating Olflcer filed a chargc shcet lor thc ot-fence trndcr Scction 324 ol' the IPC and in respect of the very salne incident, based on the complaint filed by thc petitioncr''s flather' Crime No.96 of 20 l9 was legistered against tespondent No.2 lor the o1'lcrrces punishable under Section 323 ol the IPC and other offenccs and the \rery satne oflcnce under Section 323 of the IPC is applicable against thc pctitioner/accused No.2 in the prcsent casc and the said of-fence is a q r"ron-cognizable olfencc. In thc case of non-cogniz'able offences, the Investigating Officer is requiled to obtain plior pemission frout the competent Magistrate befbre conducting an investigation, as required under Section 155(2) ol'the Cr.P.C. l-he offences alleged i I I 7 againsr the petitioner, namely under. Scctions l'. (r ar.rd 560 of thc IPC are also non-cognizable offences. 'I'hcr r';orc, under tl.rc provisions ol' Section 155(2) oi thc ('r..[).C'.. i rc lnvesti gatnlg Officcr' ought to have obtained prior pern :ssion fiont the colnpe,"ent Magistrate to conduct the investigatiorr I lowevsr, in the plesenl case , the Invcstigating Officer conductcr r I r.. rnVestigation and filt:cl thc llnal reporl without obtaini*g such Iri,r pe rurissio. es rcquiled r.rncler Section 155(2) olthc Cr.p.C l,2. In ('rl.P.No.21394 of 20 I5 thc crsrr.vhilc rligh Court ol' Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad relied upon the pr ir:iple laid clorvn bl the H<rn'ble Apex Court in Keshtv Lnl T,rltur v. Sture of Bihart, rvliclein it is specilically held that rvhen tl : allcged oflcncc is non-<:ognizable in nature, the police cannot regi.,t,rr- an FIR undcr Section 154 Cr.P.C. or proceed with investigir r( n on its ou,r.t. lnvesti8ation into a non-cognizable off-errcc can l,.r r:ndcrtaken onlv pursuant to an order of a competent Magistrai,.r under Sect.ion 155(2) Cr.l).C. L.r the absence of such perrni rsion, the entirc investigation and the report subrnitted by the po r:e arc rvithout j urisdict ion. Consequently, any cognizance taken I11 thc Magistr.ate '{roeo; r r.56'r' rr; 8 '.s on such a repoft is invatid in larv' and the procccdings arc Iiable to bc quasl.red.

13. In Nonda Gopahtt v. Stule of Keroli, thc FIon'ble Supren're Court held that the applicabilitl' of Section 324 IPC dcpends upon lhe llatule of the u'eapou used and thlt all ac1 constitutcs an oft'errce under Scction 324 onty when hurt is cattscd by a danget'ous \\'capon or means likcly to cattsc dcatlt or gricr olts htrrt Objccts nor inherelltly dangctous, sucll as sticks, stollcs' or otltct blr-trlt houschold articles, would ordinarily not latl u ithin thc ambit o[ "dangerous weapons." Applying tlie said principle, a slipper cannot by any stretch of irrterpretation be treated ns a datrgcrous \\/eapon' andtheessentialingrcdientsolsectiorr]24II,C]arcnotsatistjed. The act, at best, constitutes simple hurl under Soction 123 IPCI and given the trivial nature of thc incidcnt. contitruation o1'crirrlinal proceedings would amoutlt to an abusc ol thc process of law ' Accordingly, the FIR was lightly cluashed'

14. For the foregoing reasons as wcll as the plinciples Iaid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in lfushtrv Lal Tokur's cnse (supra I) Nanda Gopalan's case (supra 2), this Court is of the considercd \Y '(2015) ll scc li7 E). t i { l I I I I l 9 view that the continuation of procecdirlr', r a!1ainsl the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.648 ol 2020 o hc- llle ol thc Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jarlgaon, \\' r:urgal District (prcsentlv Jangaon District). is clearly an abttse "l tre proccss of Iari. llelcc, thc said pLoceedings are liablc to I.l ilLrrtshcd. atld accorclinu,ll quashed.

15. A:corclinglv, this Crirninal Pctition is allorre rl Pt:nding miscellaucous applications. if ,r': , . sllall stanci c losecl SD/.M. NAGAMANI :JTANT REGISTRAR of tl //TRUE COPY// $ECTtON OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice J. $1ssrrrr135 F{2s (For His Lordshlps Kind Perusal) To 1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jangaon, Waran,la Drstrict. (presently Jangaon District )

2. The Statron House Officer, Jangaon Police Station, J.rn,laon District 3. 11LRCopies 4. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of law, Jr-r;t ce and Company Affairs, New Delhi

5. The Secretary Telangana Advocates Association, Librzrrri, High Court Buildings Hyderabad

6. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Stak; r:f Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

7. Ohe CC to SRl. KOMIREDDY KARAMCHAND, Advo<;ale [OPUC] S One CC to Sri C RUTHWIK REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CD {}opies kul/ABK I : il.1r- r,,. r..1-r.- 'F{f9F-,@tEm;f.,fl-.r^i:-..; ; I ,4 HIGH COURT DATED:09/10/2025 I..R. ( opr 1o be rnarkccl ORDER CRL.PETITION No.602 of 2021 --:::.-. 'ii :l:,.-Sr -'1"t1, i ?t25 a\':'. 1 .,:. /.) l0 k \- _-( i:- , ALLOWING TTIE CRL.PI'TITION L_,/' CV ( t'