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 proceedings in CC no. 389 of 2019 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Thungathurthy. l.A. NO: 1OF 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 all further proceedings in CC no. 389 of 20'19 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Thungathurthy 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 N. Krishna Sumanth, Advocate for the Petitioners and of [,ilrs. S. Madhavi, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri J. Raghuram Advocate appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI Sft|DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.100 of 2O2ii:, ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-acc;used Nos.1 to 5 seeking to quash the pr,:lceedings against them in C.C.No.389 of 2019 on the file of the Juijicial First Class tVlagistrate at Thungathurthy (for short 'trial Court'), pt,rrtaining to Crime No.B2 of 2019 of P.S. Noothankal. The offences all:ged against the petitioners-acc:used Nos.1 to 5 are under Sections 325. 323 and 506 r/w. 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC')

2. Heard Sri N.Krishna Sumanth, learned counsel l'or the petitioners and lVlrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosect.rtor appearing for the respondenlState. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the rercord.

3. Basing on the complaint,daIed25.07.2019 that on 18 07.2019, the petitioners-acc:used Nos.l to 5 have attacked the houlle of |he de facto complainant, treat him and his daughter in an indiscriminate manner and threatened them with drre consequences, a case in Crirne No.82 of 2019 was registered against them for the offences under Seclions 324 and 506 rlw.34 of IPC During the course of investigation, basing on the medical certificate that the de facto complainant suffered grievcus injury, Section i 2 \ .r,), !, \ Crl.P.No-100 ot 2022 of Law was altered to Sections 325, 323 and 506 rlw. 34 tpC. Thereafter, after compretion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the trial court, the same was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.389 of 2019 for the aforesaid offences.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 5 are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. The alleged incident had happened on 18.07.20.1 9, however, the present complaint was lodged on 25.07.2019 i.e., there is a delay in lodging the complaint and the reason for such delay remained unexplained. He further submits that with regard to the very same incident, the petitioner-accused No.5 has lodged a complaint against the de facto complainant and his family members on 18.07.2019. But the Police did not register the FIR against the de facto complainant and his family members, on the said complaint made by the petitioner-accused No.5. As a counterblast to the said complaint, the de facfo complainant has lodged the present complaint against the petitioners herein on

25.07.2019. He further submits that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and the offences alleged against them are not made out, and hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against them.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant public prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. The 3 JS, J Crl.P.No.l00 of 2022 ' truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against th e petitioners can only be known after conducting full-fledged trial, and hernce, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accord ngly, she prayed to dismiss the petition

6. A perusal of the record discloses that the pe titioners-accused Nos.'1 to 5 and the de facto complainant are neighbor.rrs and there are disputes pending between them, with regard to the conrpound wall. The said disputes are purely civil in nature. Though the alle:ged incident had happened on 18.07.2019, the present complaint was lodged on

25.07 2019 i.e., there is a delay in lodging the complaint and the reason for such delay remained unexplained. lt is apparent frorn the record that the petitioner-accused No.5 has lodged a complaint agilinst the de facto complainant and his family members on 18.07.2119 and as a counterblast to the said complaint, the de facto complainant has lodged the present complaint against the petitioners-?ccUS€0, Nos.1 to 5 on 25 07 2019.

7. As seer from the record, it is evident that on receiving the complaint, the Police have sent a requisition to the l!1edical Officer to examine the de faclo complainant-injured on 25.07.2019, however, the medical certificate issued by the Doctor reflects the dale of examination of injured person as 20.07.2019, which creates a doubt regarding the genuineness of the complaint and examination of the injured. , '.}t Crt.P.No.1OO of 2022\ Furthermore, the Police filed charge sheet incorporating facts different from the complaint and FrR, which shows that the charge sheet is fired in \. a casual and mechanical manner_ B. ln view of the aforesaid discussion, the continuation of criminar proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of the process of the law, and hence, the same are liable to be quashed.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.i to 5 in C C.No.3g9 of 20'1 9 on the file of the Judicial First Class lVagistrate at Thungathurthy Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY' To Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL EPUry REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Judicial First Class IVagistrate at Thungathurty.

2. The Station House Officer, Noothankal police Station, Suryapet District. 3. One CC to Sri N. Krishna Sumanth, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

5. Two CD copies.

6. One CC to Sri.J.RaghuRam, Advocate (OPUC) BJLB Vt- --::::\ -":j_ , .i \r'r c' 6 t_ 1 E SEP 2t125 ': ir - '--:.::._---? HIGH COURT DATED: 1010312025 ORDER CRLP.No.100 of 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED q. c"*[ hna'.,,'