The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 482 of c;t.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the order dated 20.04.2022 in crl. M.p. No. 134 of 2022 in cr. No. 107 ol 2021 and consequenfly quash the c.c. No. 593 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First class, Karimnagar for the offences under sections 2go, 323 rtw. 34 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 against the Petitioner/Accused. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition,the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the personal appearance of the Petitioner/ Accused in c.c. No. 593 of 2022 on the file of the principal Junior civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First class. Karinmagar for the offences under sections 290, 323 rlw. 34 of the lndian penal code, 1960 against the Petitioner/Accused, pending disposal of the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER .&e:: - !.'. ', ./ THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMTNAL PETI TION No.2546 OF 2023 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.593 of 2022 including impugned order dated 20.04.2022 passed in CRL IVl.P.No.134 of 2022 in Crime No.107 of 2021 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial N/lagistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, registered for the offences under Sections 290, 323 read with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short'lPC')

02. Heard Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1. None appeared for the respondent No.2. Perused the record

03. ln brief, the case of the complainant-respondent No.2 is that she is a resident of Gumlapur Village of Choppadandi tVlandal and that accused No.1, who is also a 2 resident of the same village, came to Choppadandi to attend a Jai Bheem meeting, during which he obtained her phone numbers and spoke to her in a rude manner. lt is alleged that thereafter, the accused No.1 harassed her with an intention to satisfy his sexual desires by repeatedly making phone calls to her. On 01 .06.2021 , at about 19:00 hours, when she went to the house of accused No.1 and questioned him about such harassment, the petitioner_accused No.2 allegedly abused her in filthy language and assaulted her with hands. Hence, she requested the police to take necessary action. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against accused No. 1, deleting the name of the petitioner_accused No.2 for lack of evidence. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant_respondent No.2 filed a protest petition before the learned trial Court, which was allowed, and cognizance was taken against the petitioner-accused No.2 by way of the impugned order.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-accused has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences. lt is contended that the police have not filed -*, =Eff :.=' g.y ' ... ./ ^. , -:. 3 any charge sheet against the petitioner and that there is no incriminating material on record against her. It is further submitted that the concept of taking cognizance on the basis of a protest petition is not specifically contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure The learned lVlagistrate has also not issued any notice to the petitioner-accused prior to taking cognizance against her on the protest petition. It is further alleged that the complainant has a habit of obtaining phone numbers of men, calling them, and threatening them. There is an unexplained delay of four days in lodging the complaint, which has not been satisfactorily explained. With the above submissions, while praying to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner-accused he relied upon a decision of this Court in Arshanapalli Rambai v. State of Telanganal wherein at Paragraph No.7 it was held that: "7...... Even the protest petition sought for reopen the referred report and take cognizance, the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance on the protest petition must also supposed to peruse ' 2Ot5 SCC OnLine Hyd 1001 : (2016) 1 ALT (Cri) 172 4 -) the police final report with supporling material to arrive a just decision also with reference to the sworn statements on protest petition since recorded."

05. On the other hand, learned Assistant public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1 contended that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court and there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal petition.

06. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon considering the submissions advanced by both sides, it is evident on the face of the record that basing on the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 the police have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused No.'l and deleted the name of the petitioner_ 5 accused No.2 as there was no evidence against the petitioner-accused No.2

07. Even if the contents of the protest petition are taken at their face value, the sole allegation against the petitioner-accused No 2 is that she abused the complainant in filthy language and assaulted her with hands. A careful perusal of the compialnt reveals that the primary grievance pertains to the conduct of accused No..l . There are no specific details as to the exact words allegedly Lrttered by the petitioner-accused - No.2 towards the complainant. Furthermore, there is no medical evidence on record to establish the nature of injuries, if any, sustained by the complainant at the hands of the petitioner-accused No.2.

08. lt is also pertinent to note that there is an unexplained and unreasonable delay of four days in lodging the complaint, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations. lVloreover, the learned Magistrate did not issue any notice to the petrtioner-accused No 2 with respect to the protest petition prior to taking cognizance against her, 6 j despite the fact that the police, on the very same allegations, had filed a final report deleting her name for want of evidence.

09. ln vierv of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the leai-ned IVagistrate grossly failed to assess whether the allegations made in the complaint, even if taken at their face value, constitute the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. Consequenfly, the impugned order dated 20.04.2022 passed in Crl.t\I.p.No.134 of 2022 in Crime No.107 cf 2021 by the learned principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial tVlagistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, is unsustainable in law, patenfly illegal, and amounts to a manifest abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the said order is liable to be set aside and quashed.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the impugned order datecl 20 04.2022 passed in CRL.IM.P.No.134 of 2022 in Crime No.10t of 2021 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial l\4agistrate @-. r'..) 1 I of First Class, Karimnagar, IS hereby set aside. All proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. As a sequel, pending rniscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-B. REKHA RANI ASSISTAND REGISTRAR , ...I4f,ft%rr,"r* I One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Smt Justice Juwadi Sridevi (For His LordshiPs kind Perusal) To, Karimnagar

1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class' z. ij"e CCio Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, Advocate (OPUC) e. i;; cctio iuuiid pro.e"rtor, nigh court for the State of Telangana at 4. '1 1 LR Copies s. fhtUna"r Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of law' Justice and Company Hyderabad.(OUT) Affairs, New Delhi. fhe il.r"tury Advocates Association (TG) Library' High Court Buildings Hyderabad t) 7. Two CD CoPies Ks/PSL !, HIGH COURT DATED:1810712025 tr al :;r.J tH L- o, .',$ ffi )4' i t, .";i {t \, Ltl $: '.t: ORDER CRLP.No.2546 ot 2023 Allowing the Crl.P.