Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed'
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 156(3)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 32, 323, 506
- Right to Information Act, 2005
Key paragraphs
- Para 77 . Having reg, trd to the submissions of both thr, learned counsel, upon c rnsidering the fact that there was no direct participation of tlre petitioner in the alleged offences arrd relying / I on the decision pirssed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in…
Judgment
Cause title
The State of Telanqana. Rep. by its public prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad. Dr Sandineni Ravinder, S/o. K.omurarah,. Aged about 5g years, Occ. Ex_Asst Professor ("lr.S y Department), O/o Saihai;h;; Lniu"r,ty. Ka rimnagar I own and District Respondents Petition under section. 4 g2 0f cr.p .c, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the criminarb"t,tioi,-it u Hrgh court may oJpru"."a the proceedings against the petitioner in c.c No. 278 o,t 2022on the fire of 1".q.r.3:h I Additional Judicial Magistrite of First Class, farimnagar. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under section 482 0f cr p.c., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, t'n" t{igr, court may oe pr.as.o to stay all further proceedings incruding appearance of the f,etitioner in c.c. r.ro. zza of 2022 on the fire.of r Additionar Judiclr Magistrate of First crass, r"rirnrg.r.- The petition memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition coming on for llI',lg, up.on perusing the and upon hearing the arguments of BrrLA MAHTPAL REDDY Advocate for the petitioner, and rile sri E.Ganesh, Assistant pUBLrc PROSECUTOR for the Respondent No. i. ORDER THE HONOU'RABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.t2897 OF 2o23
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed under Secticn 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.278 of 2Oit'.2 on the file of the learned I Additionai Judicial Magistrate of Firs - Class, Karimnagar for the offences ptLnishable under Sections 32il and 506 of I.P.C.
Heard Mr.Bitla Mahipal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1 -State.
The brief lacts of the case are that res; pondent No. 2 / complainant ts working as the Assistant Professot (Telugu Department) in llatavahana University, Karimnagar a.nd that accused Nos.1 to (; were also working in the same Univer sity. The petitioner herein is accused No.4. It is stated that the complainant had rroticed corruption in the said University and as such he asked tre documents under RTI Act from r_he said University, due tc which, accused persons bore grudge against him; that on 01 t0.2019, accused Nos.1 to 3 attacked the complainant, at h;s Office, folded his hands, fisted his back and a 2 abused him in filthy language; that the other accused encouraged accused Nos. 1 to 3 in committing the alleged offences; that the witnesses who were present at the scene of offence rescued the complainant. Basing on the said facts, the present crime is rqglstered against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 120_B, 2gO, 324, 506 r/w 34 of I.p.C. and Section 156(3) of Cr.p.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 had frled the false complaint against the petitioner, to made dgainst petition. He harass him and that no specific allegations him either in the complaint further submits that upon or in the protest investigation, the Sub-Inspector of police, Kothapally police Station, Karimnagar District had filed the Tinal report, on 3I.O7.2O21 referring the case as 'false'
Learned. counsel further stated that there were disputes between respondent No.2 and the wife of the petitioner, for which accused No.t had acted as an elder. As such, respondent No.2, bore grudge on the petitioner, went his room and picked up quarrel with him. He further submits that all the witnesses examined by the police stated that respondent No.2 beat accused !- I I ) 3 Nos. 1 ald 3 at the time of incident and that petitioner/ accused No.4 had no rolt: to play except to pacify the incidenr. between them. Therefore, he seeks to allow this Criminal Petition
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the matter requires 1.o be tried and only upon conclus ion of a full-fledged tria-I, the truth would be elicited. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss this Criminal Petition.
Operative part
Having reg, trd to the submissions of both thr, learned counsel, upon c rnsidering the fact that there was no direct participation of tlre petitioner in the alleged offences arrd relying / I on the decision pirssed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lall, wherein it is held that where a criminal proceecli-rg is manifestly attended with maiafid e and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with ar.. ulterior motive for wreakirrg vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to plivate and personal grudge, this Court is of the opinion that there is no cogent and corroborative evi, lence to show that the pelitioner has committed the offences puLnishable under Sections 323 and 506 of I.p.C. Hence, the prcceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.2Za of 2022 on the file of the I 1992 Supp (1) Suprenr: Court Cases 335 4 learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class' Karimnagar are herebY quashed' 8 Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed' Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand clos SD/- A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT RE ISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY' For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
The I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar. 2. One CC to SRl. BITLA MAHIPAL REDDYAdvocate [OPUC] 3 TWO CCS to THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HtcH COURT, HYD 4. One spare copy s' Tuo C cqfuX (ourl PSI, g HIGH COURT DATED.27 t02t2A25 ORDER CRLP.No .1289',7 of 2023 6"tls lilS tt * D1l d 'S d.( o f,PA 75 2 L * ((, C 4I - ALLOWTNG THE CRLP. @crlcl ry{"
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed'
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3); Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 32, 323, 506; Right to Information Act, 2005.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.