Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 131 (AP)

Attili Swetha v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-01-18

K.SREENIVASA REDDY

body2023
ORDER : This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by A1 and A2, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.162 of 2016 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 2. The allegations, in brief, in the charge sheet may be stated as follows : Attili Lakshmi (L.W.1)/the de facto complainant/2nd respondent herein and Attili Annapoorna (L.W.2) are the sisters of one Swamy. A1 and A2 are the children of Swamy. There are disputes with regard to ancestral properties between the said Swamy and his sisters. While so, on 04.1.2013 A1 and A2/the petitioners herein beat the de facto complainant/2nd respondent and Attili Anapoorna (L.W.2) with hands and stick. On that the de facto complainant/2nd respondent gave report against A1 and A2. Basing on the said report, police registered a case in Crime No.6 of 2013 against A1 and A2. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.162 of 2016 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners (A1 and A2), and the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for 1st respondent. Though notice was served on the respondent No.2, none appeared on behalf of her. This Court perused the entire record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even if accepted the entire accusations are true, still no offence is made out against the petitioners for the offences under Section 324 and 323 r/w 34 IPC. He strenuously contended that the Medical Certificate was issued by the Doctor of Dharitri Hospital, Visakhapatnam, which is a Private Hospital and it is dated 21.7.2015 and hence it cannot be relied upon. He further submits that there are disputes between the petitioners and 2nd respondent and Attili Annapoorna (L.W.2), hence the petitioners are falsely implicated in this case by foisting false case against them. 5. He further submits that there are disputes between the petitioners and 2nd respondent and Attili Annapoorna (L.W.2), hence the petitioners are falsely implicated in this case by foisting false case against them. 5. The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the petitioners have to be decided only during the course of trial and in fact there are specific accusations against the petitioners herein and hence this Court, in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot evaluate the evidence and decide the merits. 6. Apparently on perusal of the charge sheet, and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., they go to show that there are disputes with regard to ancestral properties between both the parties. In connection with the said disputes, there are suits pending before the civil Court. It is alleged that on 04.1.2013 Attili Annapoorna (L.W.2) when attended the Court to give evidence, her brother Swamy engaged labourers for construction/renovation of a house in the disputed site and went out. 2nd respondent herein questioned the workers who were attending the construction work. On that A1 and A2 the children of Swamy came out from their house and beat 2nd respondent and Attili Annapoorna (L.W.2) with hands. A2 picked up a stick and beat Attili Annapoorna (L.W.2) on her head and caused bleeding injuries. A2 also beat 2nd respondent with the same stick on her arms and caused injuries. A1 applied pressure the neck of 2nd respondent and beat her with hands. Hence, 2nd respondent herein gave report to the police and based on the said report, police registered a case in Crime No.6 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323 r/w 34 IPC and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet and the same is taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.162 of 2016 by the III Metropolitan Magistrate. 7. Going by the accusations there are disputes between both parties with regard to ancestral properties. On that the petitioners beat 2nd respondent herein and Attili Annapoorna (L.W.2) with hands and stick and as a result, 2nd respondent herein and Attili Annapoorna (L.W.2) received multiple abrasions to the scalp and palm. On the same date, the witnesses have been subjected for medical examination i.e., on 04.1.2013 at 10.30 P.M., The doctor has issued certificate that 2nd respondent herein and Attili Annapoorna (L.W.2) received multiple injuries. On the same date, the witnesses have been subjected for medical examination i.e., on 04.1.2013 at 10.30 P.M., The doctor has issued certificate that 2nd respondent herein and Attili Annapoorna (L.W.2) received multiple injuries. A perusal of the Medical Certificate goes to show that the said certificate was issued on 21.7.2015 by the doctor of Dharitri Hospital, Visakhapatnam. The injuries received by the de facto complainant/2nd respondent herein and another show that incident had taken place during evening hours of the day and medical certificate is corroboration to that extent. A perusal of the statements of the witnesses categorically reveals that both the accused came out from the house and beat 2nd respondent herein and Attili Annapoorna (L.W.2). 8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that cognizance has been taken beyond the period of limitation. It is submitted on 04.1.2013 the said alleged incident had taken place. S.Tata Rao (L.W.10)/Inspector of Police registered the FIR on the same date of giving report i.e., 04.1.2013 at about 7.00 pm. Thus, the said report has been lodged immediately after three hours of the incident. When the information has been given to the police on the same day, it cannot be said that the said report has been given beyond period of limitation. For computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. the relevant date is the date of filing of complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. My view has been fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amritlal vs Shantilal Soni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248, wherein it is held, 3.1. (i) Whether for the purposes of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of the prosecution or whether the relevant date is the date on which a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence? 3.2. (ii) Which of the two cases i.e. Krishna Pillai [Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran, 1990 Supp SCC 121] or Bharat Kale [Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P., (2003) 8 SCC 559 ] (which is followed in Japani Sahoo [Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394 ]), lays down the correct law? The Constitution Bench answered the aforesaid questions as follows: - 51. The Constitution Bench answered the aforesaid questions as follows: - 51. In view of the above, we hold that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. We further hold that Bharat Kale [Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P., (2003) 8 SCC 559 ] which is followed in Japani Sahoo [Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394 ] lays down the correct law. Krishna Pillai [Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran, 1990 Supp SCC 121 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 646] will have to be restricted to its own facts and it is not the authority for deciding the question as to what is the relevant date for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC. (emphasis supplied) Therefore, the enunciations and declaration of law by the Constitution Bench do not admit of any doubt that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC, the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence. The High Court has made a fundamental error in assuming that the date of taking cognizance i.e., 04.12.2012 is decisive of the matter, while ignoring the fact that the written complaint was indeed filed by the appellant on 10.07.2012, well within the period of limitation of 3 years with reference to the date of commission of offence i.e., 04.10.2009.” 9. Thus, in the present case, specific overt acts have been attributed against the petitioners herein as seen from the charge sheet. At this stage, this Court would not be in a position to ascertain truth or otherwise of the said accusations. The defences that are sought to be raised are all being questions of fact, they have to be established in the course of trial. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is primarily concerned with the accusations that are made in the charge-sheet and other material available on record and cannot make a roving enquiry about the truthfulness or falsity of the same. 10. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is primarily concerned with the accusations that are made in the charge-sheet and other material available on record and cannot make a roving enquiry about the truthfulness or falsity of the same. 10. In view of the same, this is premature for this Court to interfere with the proceedings pending on the file of the learned Court below. Hence the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. However, since the A1/ the petitioner No.1 is a woman, her presence is dispensed with in the trial Court and that she shall appear whenever the learned Magistrate specifically directs for her appearance. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.