The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor' High Court at Hyderabad. Oarn"rt" Sumalatha, W/o ganesh Aged about 41 years, Occ' Forest Section Officer, l/c at Mayuri Nursery Appannapally' tvlothinagar, Town' Mahbubnagar District, R/ o Marlu Area, Mothinagar Town, Mahbubnagar District' ...NESPOruOEruT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofcriminalPetition,theHighcourtmay u"pt"u."atoQuashtheproceedingsagainstthePetitioner/AccusedNo.3inCC. fll.' SZO of 2022 on the file of the bourt of the lV Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum- lV Additional Judicial First class Magistrate (P and E) at Mahbubnagar (previously CC.No.421 of 2017) in the interest of JuStice' I.A. NO:2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P C praying that in the circumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofcriminalPetition,theHighcourtmay - pi"*"d to Stay all further proceedings including appearance o-f-.tfe U" ietiiioner/Accused rub.g in CC.No. sza ot zozz (previously CC.No.421 of 2017)' onthefileoftheCourtoftheJudicialFirstClassMagistrate(PandE)at Mahbubnagar, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petit'ion and upon hearing the arguments of sri M A K r,auiHggo, Advocate for the petitioner and Mrs. s MADHAVI, Assistant Public Fro"".rior, on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent no.2 The Court made the following: ORDER i I I I i I i I i i i.:,;:== I ) THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMIN ALPETITION No .632 of 2O22 ORDER: This criminar petition is fired under Section 4g2 of cr.p.c. by the petitioner-accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in c c.No'926 of 2022 on the fire of the rearned rV Additionar Junior civir Judge-cum-lV Additionar Judiciar First crass Magistrate at Mahabubnagar (previously c.c.No.421 of 2o1r on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate (prohibition and Excise) at Mahabubnagar), registered for the offences under sections 353 and 324 read with Section 34 of lpC.

2. Heard Mr. M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. S.Madhavi, rearned Assistant pubric prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. lnspite of service of notice, none appears for respondent No.2-de facfo complainant. perused the record.

3. The de facfo comprainant is working as Forest section officer at Mayuri Nursery, Appannapally. The gist of the complaint is that on 27-09.2017, the accused visited the park to pray cricket. on observing the same, LW-2ll.Krishnaiah instructed them to stop playing the game in public place. But the accused paid deaf ear and continued to pray the game. [\4eantime, the ball was hit to the back of LW-2 and other visitors. ) 2 When the visitors complained to the de facfo complainant, she' along with her staff, went there and instructed the accused to stop the game' buttheydeniedandobstructedtodischargeherduties.WhenLW-2 intervened, accused No.1 beat him with stone causing bleeding injury to thehead.AccusedNo.2andpetitioner-accused.No.3beatLW-2with hands and kicked him with legs with a common intention' lt is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 4. petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case The petitioner and his family members went to Mayuri Nursery for vacation' When the petitioner and his family members were playing cricket' a group of people obstructed the petitioner and assaulted him' as such' his family members lodged a complaint' As a counterblast to the said complaint, the present complaint was lodged against the accused ln fact, the petitioner never assaulted or misbehaved with LW-2' lt is also contendedthattherearenospecificallegationsagainstthepetitionerand the ingredients of the offences alleged against him are not made out' Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner'

5. on the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contendedthattherearespecificallegationsagainstthepetitionerherein. All 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 ,:srq.f+ ,.:, 3 proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition

6. For proper adjudication of the matter, it is apposite to extract Sections 353 and 324 of lpC, which are as under: "353. Assault or criminal force to deter pubtic servant from discharge of his duty._Whoeyer assau/fs or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such pubtic servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public seruant, or in consequence of aiything doie or attempted to be done by such person in tie lawful discharge of his duty as such pribli" ""*"rt, sha be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. "324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means-_ Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbin-g or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offe.nce, is likety to cause death, or Oy neani of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive subslance or by means of aiy substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.,, 7. Section 353 of lpC deals with assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty. rn the instant case, when the de facto complainant asked to stop praying cricket, the accused denied to do so, obstructing to discharge her duty. IVlere deniar or disagreement, without physical force or threat, does not fall under section 353 of lpc. Except stating that the petitioner denied, there is no specific ailegation 1 4 against him as to how he has used physical force or threat' Hence' the ingredients of Section 353 of IPC are not made out' 8 Section 3J4 of IPC deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by using dangerous weapons . ln the instant case, according to the charge sheet, the allegation against the petitioner is that he has beat LW-2 with hands and kicked him with legs. Beating with bare hands or legs does not fall under section 324 of lPC, unless the injury suffered is grievousinnature.Themedicalcertificatedisclosesthattheinjuries suffered by LW-2 are simple in nature' Even as per the complaint' charge sheet and the statements of witnesses i'e" LWs l to 5' no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioner' g.lnviewoftheaforesaiddiscussion,thecontinuationofcriminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No'3 amounts to sheer abuse of process of the law. Hence, the proceedings against him are liable to be quashed.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed' quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No'3 in C'C No'926 of 2022 onthefileofthelearnedlVAdditionalJuniorCivilJudge-cum-lV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mahabubnagar (previously C.C.No.42lof2olTonthefileofthelearnedJudicialFirstClass Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise) at Mahabubnagar)' Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. sd/- A. s oa\ //TRUE COPYII $- REENIVASA REDDY STANT REGISTRAR \I SECTION OFFICER To, lt4agistrate (P&E) at Mahbubnagar.

1. The lV Additional Junior civil Judge-cum- lV Additional Judicial First class 2. The Station House officer, Irilahbubnagar Rural p.s., Mahbubnagar District. 3. One CC to SRt. tV A K MUKHEED Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two ccs to PUBLTG pRosECUToR, High court foithe state of rerangana 5. Two CD Copies [ouT] MKN/kam HIGH GOURT DATED:1410712025 I ORDER CRLP.No.632 of 2022 :=:- t.; /a: tl;?$ ,//<' /'+ J o () 6 a 1l tlJE zffi | Qr sl:,t r; t '- -,,rt !',/ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION