The High Court · 2025

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 quash the charge sheet in c c. 1417 ol 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First class. (Spl. l\/obrle) at Karimnagar, for the offence U/Sec. 336-, 294(b), 352, 427 , 506 r/w 34 of IPC against petitione rs/accu sed No 1 to 3, pin the interest of justice l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021 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 and including the personal appearance of ihe petitioneri/A.l to A.3 in C.C 1417 of 2O20 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First class. (spl. tvlobile) at Karimnagar, for the offence U/sec 336 294(b), 352, 427,506 r/w. 34 of IPC against petitioners/accused No. 1 to 3 pending disposal of this Criminal Petition in the interest of iustice ,7 This Petition :oming on for hearing,upon perusing th: Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Fetition and upon hearing the argLl nents of Sri VIKAS JOSHI ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E Ganesh Asst F)Lrblic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and of Sri It/ Ranr mohan reclcy Advocate for the Respondent No2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.3867 OF 2O2L ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.l4l7 of 2O2O pendrng on the hle of Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Specia,t Mobile) at Karimnagar, Karimnagar District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 336,294(bl, 352, 427,506 r/w 34 IPC

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 19.O8.2O20 at 2l:15 hours, the defacto complainant (2nd respondent) lodged a written complaint in Telugu at P.S. Karimnagar. He stated ttrat he is working as a doctor at Prathima Hospital, Nagunur village, and residing in Flat No. 3O2, Third Floor, Annapurna Residency, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar. In the Fourth Floor, Flat No. 4O2, one Varaprasad (A2), along with A1 (his son) and A3 (v,,i[e of A1), were residing. ( Page 2 of l1

3. There was a water leakage from the lburth floor, due to which the slab, windows, ald door s of Flat No 3O2 were darnaged. When the defacto com.plainant requested them to repair the leakage, the accuscd abused him in hlthy language and n'r-l,Ce obscene gestures, saying: "MEMO RAMU Rtrl).AJR KUDA CHEYYAM, EMI CHESUKUNTARO CIIESUI(ONDI," thereby creating fear and threatening him u'ith dire consequences, including death, if he insistc.l on repairs

4. At that time, the son of the defacto c,:mplainalt, Mr. Vala Ashwin Kumar (L.W.2), Venkaie:shu,ar Rao (L.W.3), arid Srinivas (L.W.a) \rrere present. l'he accused refused to carry out the necessarl repairs, ,irrs a result of which the slab ceiling of the flat belo,.r, eventua-lly collapsed, posing a serious threat to human. life in Flat No. 302. The defacto complainant incurred er loss of Rs. 75,OOO/- and requested that appropriate legal action be taken against the accused. .E :.r*al7ffi Pagc 3 of ll

5. Basing on the said compiaint, L.W.7 registercd a case in Crime No.350 of 2O2O under Sections 336, 294lbl, 352, 427, 506 rl\\, 34 IPC and took up rnve strgatlon.

6. On 20.O8.2O2O, L.W.7 examined and recorded statements of L.Ws. I and 2 in part-ll C, D in the Police Station. Thereafter, he went to the scene of offence and recorded statements of L.Ws.3 and 4 and served notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.1417 of 2O2O on the file of Judicia,l Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile) at Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

7. Heard learned counsel lor the petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the 2"d respondent I defacto complainant w' YigS': ' \ Pagc4ofll

8. Lcarned counsel for the petitioners sLrtrmittcd that the )n<t respondent filed a falsc casc :rgarnst the pe titioners as a counterblast to the compl:r rnt lodeed by thc 1st petitioner on 08.08.2020, v,,hi<:h was acknou,ledged At'llrrou lcdqment No. I(NR/ KRN4N GR2TN_KAR/ 080820 / O0B6 5, cl ated

08.08.2020. Since no action was t:rkcn by the respondent/police on the said complaint, the 1st pctitioner h1e<l another complaint on 17.08 2102C, which \r'as rcceivcd by the Sub Inspector of Policc, K:rrimnagar-ll Police Station, The Su.b-lnspector endorscd thzrt, as the contents of rlr l complaint attracted Seclions 29O, 352, and 506 rezrl ',r.ith ll4 IPC - rvhich al'e non-cognizable in nature frirther action would be initiated after obtaining permissicrn lrom the Court. The Judicia,l Magistrate of First Clzrss (Special Mobile), Karimnagar, vide Official Memo Iris. No. 600, I i"--- dated L9.OB.2O2O, granted permission to investigate the complaint lodged by the petitioner/A1. Corrsequently, a ..-..!:=r. "rg#? Page5ol'll case in Crime No. 351 of 2O2O, dated 20.08.2O2O, was registered by the Kar-imnagar II Town Police Station against the 2nd respondent and seven others

9. After conducting an investigation in Crime No. 351 of 2O2O and examining 10 witnesses, the respondent/police filed a final report (Charge Sheet No. 81 of 2O2O\ on 28.08.2020 belore the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile), Karimnagar, stating that the contents of the complaint were found to be false. Aggrieved by the same, the lst petitioner filed a protest petition under Section 190(t)(a)(b) of the Cr.P.C before the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobite), Karimnagar, rrvhich lvas allowed, and the investigation is currently in progress before the Iearned trial Court.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the 2'd respondent/defacto complainant filed a false complaint against the petitioners on 19.O8.2O2O, based on which a case in Crime No. 25O of 2O2O was registered Page6ofll $l;Pt'rr ' \" *&i .:r - by the Karimnagar-Il Tovvn Poiice Statiolr. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a charge sl rr:et u,as filed in C.C. No 1417 ol 2O2O under Sections i\3(t, 294(ltl, 352, 127, zurr,l 506 read i,,,ith Section 34 o-thc IpC. Hc submits that the 2nr1 respoudent liled thc prescnt case n.rerely to shield themselves from thc investigation initiated on the complaint lodged by the 1st pctitioner: otheru.ise, thcre is no substance in the allc:qiltions made against thc 1tr: titioners, as the contents of 1 l-re complaint filed by thc 2nd respondent do not withstanct lega1 scrutiny. He lurther submits, fairly, th:ir. trial Court proceedings :rre pending in C.C. No. 1417 of )02O, as are the procccdings on the complaint lile,1 by the 1st pctitione r. Hence, he seeks the indutgt:nce of this Hon'bie Courl to quash the proceedings pcrrding against the petitioners herein 1 1. On the other hand, Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learnecl counsel for the 2nd respondent. ldefacto complainant, submits that it is an admittecl lact that the *vf petitioners reside on the 4th floor, ivhiie the defacto complainant resides on the 3rd floor of the same apartment building. He contends that damage was caused to the property of the defacto complainant due to the negligence of the petitioners. Upon being questioned about the issue, instead of resolving the matter amicably, the petitioners allegedly resorted to overt acts, ieading to the lodging of the present complaint. He further submits that the defacto complainant had no knowledge of the complaint filed against him and others by the 1st petitioner, arrd no notice in that regard has been served upon him. Therefore, there is no possibility that the defacto complainant was aware of the said complaint filed by the 1st petitioner. He further submits that since the trial has already commenced, the indulgence of this Hon'ble Court at this stage is not warranted. He tairly submits that, as the defacto complainant is also facing trial before the learned trial I I Court on the basis of the complaint filed by the 1st Pagc 8 ofll -- \-"ffir 'i, t=; petil.ioner, tlre trial Court may be permittecl to conduct a full-fleclged tr-ial, arrive at a logical corr :lusion, ar-rd accordingl), prays for disrnisserl of the presr,rr t petition

12. Adopting the submissions of the lealned counsel for the )r'.'t re spot-rdent, learned Assi:.;tanl Public Prosecutor appeerring for the 1 "t responden t / State would sul:rnit that since the trial Court proccedings have alrcady bee'n commenced, the truth or othr:rwise will be elicited onlv after full-fledged tria1, ancl sought for dismissal of tl-re petition.

13. This Clourt, relving upon the judgment ,rI' the Hon'ble Supreme Cor-rrt in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited u. State of Maharashtra and. Otherst, is of the opin ion that the present case is not a fit one for exercising jurisdiction urrder Section 482 Cr.P.C., as rivrr. contentions havc been raised, ald both trials one based on the 1 AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 1918 :: Pagc 9 of 11 complaint filed by the petitioners and the other based on the complaint liled by the 2nd respondent/ defacto complainzrnt are currently in progress beforc the learned trial Court

14. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the learned Trial Court to decide the case on its own merits. However, as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are at liberty to file an application for their discharge before the learned Trial Court, in accordance w'ith law, raising the same contentions as raised herein. The appearalce of the petitioners 1S dispensed with, subject to their liling an afhdavit stating that they will not dispute the proceedings conducted by their counsel in their absence. However, the petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate whenever their presence is specihcally required. In the event the petitioners faii to appear when directed by the Court, this order dispensing \{rith their appea-rance shall stald automatically vacated. Papc l0 ofll \eE\*i!.i!:.' As a sequel, miscellaneous petiticr:Ls, if ,ry, pending, sha1l stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD,'. L. LAKSHMI BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR & SECTION OFFICER To, .1. The Judicial [/agistrate of First Class. (Spl. Mobile) a1 Karimnagar 2. The Station House Officer.Police Station Karimnagar, Karimnagar District 3 One CC to SRI VIKAS JOSHI Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CC to SRI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) Advocater [OUT] 5 Two CD Copies AG/gh HIGH COURT DATED:30/07/2025 ORDER CRLP No. 3867 OF2021 CRLP IS DISPOSED OF q J \. t, i B 4 r{0v zffi l.:n ' -- "L o * ) ')It I a\ \.