High Court · 2025

(T)' Raianna pJuri" Piosecutor' ''tf.:fEgJ3,l[?i'f" ,Ri":nt,Xi'j[:1'fl ,C,:?i*::A3Elifr ,'"lEi[].:i::If 3;[?'H'J'.'ii[''o ...RESPONDENTI DEFACTO - COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 4371438t43gt482 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 P R'C No 29 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate' at Vemulawada now numbered as S.C-No- 312023, on the file of The Assistant Sessions Judge' at Vemulawadain which they are shown as Accused No' 1 and 2' ' l.A. NO:2 oF 2022 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 of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/Accused No 1 and 2 in P R C No- 29 of 2021' on the file of the Judicial First C!::ss Magistrate, 312023, on the file of The Assistan This petition coming on fo - Grounds of Criminal petition Sri K VENUMADHAV, Advocate Assistant public prosecutor (fG) Appeared for the Respondent No.2 at Vemulawada, nolv riumbered as S.C.No. t Sessions Judge, at Venr,tlawada. r hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of and upon hearing the arguments of for the petitioners and Mrs. S.MADHAVI, on behalf of the Responclent No.1 and None The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADTSRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITIO N No. 2842 of 20 22 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr'P'C by the petitioners_accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S'C'No'3 of 2023 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge at Vemulawada (for short 'trial Court') (previously P R'C No 29 of 2O21 onthe file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Vemulawada)' registered for the offence punishabte under Section 307 r/w' 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short'lPC')

2. Heard Sri K'Venumadhav' learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-state Notice sent to respondent No 2-de facto complainant was returned with an endorsement 'refused' Refusal of notice amounts to service of notice' lnspite of the same' there is no representation on behalf of respondent No'2' Perused the record'

3. The case of the prosecution' in brief is that on 06'07'2020' at 06.00 a.m., in the morning, the de facto complainant was proceeding on her Scooty from her house at Shivarampet Village to attend her duties at Shanivarampet. ln the meantime' when she reached the outskirts of Satrajpally Village at 07'00 a m.' the petitioners-accused Nos'1 and 2 f :t! t .+ : :l.l :i; ':1 ':l.t .1 2 ,r.r.f o.rr,, ,rt|,r1 followed her on their motorcycle, dashed her Scooty with their motorcycle and attacked her with sticks with an intention to ki, her due to which, she suffered injuries on her head, face and leg and ber;rlme unconscious. Basing. on the said complaint, a case in Crime No. jB6 of 2020 was registered against the petitioners_accused Nos.1 and 2. Aftercompletion of investigation' charge sheet was fited before the rerarned Magistrate. The same was taken cognizance and numbered as p.R.C.No.2 9 of 2021 . Thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessrons Court and re-numbered as S.C.No.3 of 2O23for the aforesaid offenr:e. 4' petitioners-accused Learned counser appearing for the petitioners submits that the Nos.1 and 2 are innocent and ha,ze been falsery impricated in the case' The areged incident had occurred on 06.07.2020, however, the present complaint was lodged on 21.11 .2()20 i.e., after a delay of more than four months and the reason for such (Jeray remained unexprained' which wourd raise suspicion about the authentrcity of the case He further submits that the de facto comprainant has; earrier lodged a complaint, dated 02.11.2020 against her husband, mother_in_law and the petitioners herein_accused Nos.l and 2, who are family members of her husband, stating that they harassed her demanding ad<litional dowry. The said complaint was registered as a case in Crime No.261 of 2020. According to the de facfo complainant, the alleged incident rn the present crime has occurrecl on 06.07.2020. However, there is no rlention about ) 3: ..: i i: L 3 JS, J Crl.P.No.2842 of 2022 the same in her complaint' dated 02'11'2020' Hence' it is clear that the incident of petitioners attacking the de facto complainant as alleged in her complaint has not at all occurred He further submits that the de facto complainant has lodged another complaint against her husband and the same was registered as a case in Crime No 265 of 2021' tt is further contended that there are no specific ailegations against the petitioners and the ingredients of offence under Section 307 of IPC are not made out. There are matrimonial disputes between the parties and only to wreck vengeance and with a view to spite them due to personal grudge' lhe de facto complainant has lodged various criminal complaints against her husband and his family members' including the petitioners herein' ln support of his contention' learned counsel relied on the 5. judgment of State of Haryana and others v CH.Bhaian Lal and othersl ,wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows The foltowing categories oI cases can be stated by way- of u,'"i,ii.ii'ii3*i,t;"*yyl2!7;;-"rL{f :i!*"::;':[ the inherent Powers under exercised hv the High cou't "itiii to prevent abuse' of the ?ZLZiiZ,Zri C.uior otherwise to secure the ends ot 1u^ tce' 'thouoh it mav not n" po""'o'i'ii |iy-io*n uny precise' ';:;;;;'r';; L;i;iitiv cnannerised and inttexibte s'!i*!il:'s or rioid formutae and to gtve un"iiiiuJii" list of myriad kinds of :*""t *r;;;;; icn p6wer snoutd be exercised: (11 Where the altegatrcns made in the Firsl tntormalion 'Repotl bi the complaint even it n'v"i'i'ixln at thei tace Y?tl? "nd Z*i"itZJ'ir-n"ir entirety do not prima lacie' conslilute any offence or make out a case against the accused; 'clearlY , ',,,:: i+i {$r. r0* I.! :r; ' r992 scc (cri) 426 +!j -it 4 JS. J Crl.P.No.2B4Z ot 2022 (2) here the atteo rlinu, i"iuriuir.'iizor?lb::' the Frrst tnformation Repott and a cognizabte o6.1,!.^u","o!!!nying lhe F.t.R. do t.ot disctose y:;::j:,?fl?;:r,:lT i':{ii:t:_[,i |#t/r * '"?#l:i;f ,':;;:!ii,i:::!"^!^,:,!".y:tions made in the FtR or not oisctoie'"the"iiY": *ttgcted in support of re same do case against thi ;;;:;jj.#'t' of anv offence and ntzke out a (4) Where, the a e( cognizabte ottun"u I::?nt^ -i! .!!19 FIR do not cottstitute a y:::tzi:in:,;,":;i[:.T:itfi:',{,:,,::#;,?,?!i|;*, tte as contemplaled under sectbn t ssri) ot rne code; "i te grtevance of lhe aggrieved p.t.ty. u,[ ]|iina"ti i,iil,ffi ;ii;;,conct ':l"yl"';Y7,i':7::i';':!11e 'it the FtR or comptai'tt are so prudent perso'n;;;"'!,.!?:?bibte.on the bas/s or ,vn,cn io u s ionet h at t h ere ts u rri ' (6) Where there is an e :iri!:;,i!!!:,ii,i!:ii,:;:i"X1:::;';:r'i;t.i'il;#:: ;/:::;r::"'l;:l!':Ai::;1"!!,!i?2:'fl oJli,,!,i,,!!,,::;:i:;l efficacrous redre;" ;;r"; o_r . the concemed Act. ).oviding (7) Where a criminal ot i:'iix-irtx"'!i::;."ii!:ii,q;:i;:;':;.ili;,:i.x:[ ::i'iZ":*,;,iW;:!;Y;"U,Y:;if Ln':?:',1;i:'i. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners 6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant publir: prosecutor contended that there are specific allegations against the p,.titioners and 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 :J t, i;.; ! f ,i. + 5 JS, J Cd.P.No-2842 of 2022 proceedings at this stage' Accordingly' she prayed to dismiss the petition For the sake of convenience' Section 307 of IPC is extracted 7 hereunder: slhatt be ,Punished "307- AttemPt to murder'- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge' and -iuian'- undersuch"i'"'*'"ii"ii'init'irn.-tythat,actcauseddeath' he woutd bt s;iiv'";r imprisonment ot eiiiZr aescription for a term-which may extend be tiabte to-rine; and if hurl is to ten vears, "'d"';;;;;i;; caused to u'y pt'"li'ty-"i"i act' the offender shatl be liable either to i*p'i"oni"nl'r*- tir"' o' to such punishment as is hereinbefore me ntioned' Attempts by life convicts - When any person.offending under thlsseclionisunier.sintenceofimpns.on.mentforlife,hemay, 'ii iri i" bi punished with death l!:/strgtions iit"ntion to kitt him' under such G)A shoots ut 2'"ii "uu""a, 'ii" a"'ii insued .A *ot!:!- guiltv of circumstances tnit' iita.,' a is tiabte to punishment under th,s.secuon' (b)A, with me i'teniiii oiciniusing tne death or a chitd of tender years, exposes it'i i At""n pa"t A has committed the offence the death or the child does not defined bv tn" "[Lio''Gi'ign t3f,,"int"naing Gi'iii^nt''io tnl-ii"ni' A ri'u tn" sun at Z He has committed tn" oiinl""i"ined in this secion' and if bv such firins he *o'na"'i,'iLii iiaore to tn:!::i:!:"t provided bv ft!)A. intendins t;;;';;;; Z"bv' poison' py'"!9""" poison and iii-iid inth' remains in A's keeping; A has mixes the 'u" not yet committe'i'ii"-ifftn"t defined in this section. A places the food o' z'" iuiti i' i"i'livers it to z's seNant to place it on z's table e nu" #ititJ tlhe offence defined in this seclion " part of the fist paragraph of ths sec- o-n to murder z' buys a gun toads it' A has not -thteiatter -bt -and ln the ludgme nt of Dilawar Singh v' State of Delhf ' al paragraph

8. No.8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: ,s.lncriminattriatoneofthecardinalprinciptesfortheCoutlis to look for pt'uiiii-"rpt"nation lor the delay in lodging the' itt"'os opponunity to lhe complainant repotT- Delay "o:#eii"{ ' ntn zooz sc az3+ i.il g ,{ ,..fl ;u j.E i# .m .TE .tgt e i-rl' +, rir] t '-t 6 JS, J Crl.P-No.2842 of ZO22 to make detiberation upon the complaint anl to make embellishment cna,ceortne'uois:;:;#.{:;:#;;:::n::i::,,r,;t::::":* be presented before the.Cou,t;i th.-;u;i;it instar,ce. Tnat is why if there is de-ta1in eitner comiig-tJioiiii, pot,r" or before the rloud, the couds,atways ,;; i;;;;;;"t;ns w:t,i suspicion and look for satisfactory expranation.ii ,ir'"""n sarisfacrion is formed, the detay is treited'air"at i. iii'ir*"cuti(,tt case.,, 9. As seen from the record, it is evident that the de lactocomplainant has lodged three complaints against her husband and his family members' incruding the petitioners herein. Though the areged incident had occurred on 06.07.2020, the present complaint was lodged on 21 .11 .2020 i.e., after a delay of more than four montts. There is no proper or satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodgin,S the complaint, hence' the deray is treated as fatar to the prosecution case, in view of the law laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Dilawar Srnglr,s case (supra) 10' [t is apparent on the face of the record that there.re matrimonial disputes between the parties and the de facto complainrtnt has lodged three complaints against her husband and his family members, including the petitioners herein. The alleged incident in the present crime had occurred on O6.0-,7.2020, however, there is no mention about the same in the earlier complaint lodged by the de facto complainant ctn 02.11.2020, which creates a cloubt with regard to the genuineness or the complaint and the occurrence of the a'eged incident. rf at arr reary srch an incident had taken place, the de facto comprainant wourd have mentioned about 7 J'J Crl.P.No-2842 of 2022 the same in her earlier complaint' dated 02 1 1'2020' Therefore' it appears that only to settle personal scores' lhe de facto complainant has lodged the present complaint belatedly against the petitioners herein' in view of the matrimonial disputes between them' Moreover' the charge sheet does not discrose any motive on the part of the petitioners-a@used Nos.1 and 2 to commit the murder of the victim' The alleged confession of the petitioners-accused Nos'1 and 2 did not lead to any recovery of material objects like sticks or motorcycle used in the commission of offence, as such, the confessional statements do not have any weight in the eye of law. This lacuna' while conducting the investigation creates reasonabledoubtwithregardtothecaseoftheprosecution.

11. ln view of the above discussion' this Court is of the firm optnton thattheinstantcriminalproceedingismaliciouslyinstitutedbythe de factocomplainant with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance with a view to spite the petitioners-accused Nos'1 and 2 to exercise personal grudge, as there are matrimonial disputes between them' Hence' the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhaian Lal's case (supra)' as such' the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos' 1 and 2 amounts to sheer abuse of process of the law and the same are liable to be quashed I .l i:l I JS. J Crl.P-No.2842 of 2022

12. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners_accused Nos.1 and :2 in S.C.No.3 of 2023 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge at Vemulawada (for short 'trial Court,) (previously p.R C.No .29 of 2021 on the file of lhe Judicial First Class Magistrate at Vemulawada). Pending misceflaneous apprications, if any, shal stard crosed. sD/--TTT|RUMALA DEVI \oEPIJTY REG|STRAR //TRUE COPY// 'l^ dtcrrorv oFFrcER

1. The Assistant Sessions Judge, at Vemulawada. ' Ix;",:li'3|.J;1i"'B?"?**,.' Rajanna sircirra Porice Station, vemurawada (r), 3 Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Court at Hycteraba<i. (OUT) 4. One CC to SRI. K VENUMADHAV Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies RC/sh HIGH COURT DATED: 1gtO3t2O2S ORDER l\r. a CRLP.No.2842 ot 2022 10,11 2025 J * U/: .-'. 2 \ Accordingly, this Criminal petition is Altolved. ,ILW \e\