Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 599 (TS)

Chiluveru Suresh v. State of Telangana

2025-05-02

N.TUKARAMJI

body2025
ORDER : N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL, J. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’) seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.616 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Juvenile Court), Jangaon, against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in C.C.No.616 of 2024 charged for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘I.P.C.’). 3. I have heard Mr.P.Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel, representing Mr.R.S.Sumith Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that the respondent No.2/de- facto complainant and accused No.3 in the Calendar Case are brothers and the accused No.1, the petitioner/accused No.2 are sons of accused No.3. In the backdrop of civil disputes, on 17.01.2024, accused Nos.1 to 3 attacked the respondent No.2/de facto complainant and his family members with rods, sticks and axe and threatened them with dire consequences. Upon filing the final result, the Court has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 294((b), 324 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and numbered the Calendar Case 616 of 2024. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the de facto complainant had foisted the false case to counter blast the police report filed by the accused No.3 in C.C.No.616 of 2024 on 17.01.2024 contending that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant herein along with his sons illegally trespassed into the land owned and in possession of the accused No.3 with a tractor and destroyed the standing crop, assaulted accused Nos.1 to 3 with sticks and spades and threatened with dire consequences. On such report, case in Crime No.14 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 290, 324, 506 read with 34 of IPC was registered against the respondent No.2/de facto complainant herein and his sons. That apart the petitioner/accused No.2 has successfully cleared the Group-IV Service examinations conducted by the Telangana State Public Service Commission and his final selection has been withheld due to the pendency of the present criminal case, which was foisted to jeopardize his employment prospects. That apart the petitioner/accused No.2 has successfully cleared the Group-IV Service examinations conducted by the Telangana State Public Service Commission and his final selection has been withheld due to the pendency of the present criminal case, which was foisted to jeopardize his employment prospects. He further asserted that there is no material placed to prove the alleged offences and the criminal proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive and to pressurize the accused No.3 in settling the pre- existing civil disputes. Additionally, even by the police report no ingredients to attract the alleged offences are being made out. On the other hand, pleaded that the alleged overt acts of the petitioner shall be considered as acts of private defence. Thus, prayed for quashment of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 6. In support of his pleadings the learned counsel had cited the judgments (i) Thavalingam and another v. State by Inspector of Police – 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 33284; (ii) Hasin Jahan and others v. State of West Bengal and another – 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 9113; (iii) Sugurappa and others v. State of Karnataka – 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 165; (iv) Manik Taneja and another v. State of Karnataka and another – (2015) 7 SCC 423 ; (v) Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another – (2017) 11 SCC 239 ; (vi) Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited and another v. Rajiv Dubey – (2009) 1 SCC 706 ; and (vii) Munshi Ram and others v. Delhi Administration – 1967 SCC OnLine SC 80. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the allegations are obvious against the petitioner. Further, the date of occurrence and the police report months ahead of the recruitment process. As such the contention that to defeat the petitioner’s prospects of employment this case has been foisted is clearly improbable. Further the pleading as to filing of counter case itself is indicating the occurrence as alleged. The role of the petitioner has to be ascertained in the investigation and the merits would be concluded in a proper trial. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim for quashment of proceedings cannot be accepted and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. I have perused the materials on record. 9. The role of the petitioner has to be ascertained in the investigation and the merits would be concluded in a proper trial. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim for quashment of proceedings cannot be accepted and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. I have perused the materials on record. 9. The pleadings of the petitioner are evidencing that on the self same incident, Crime No.14 of 2014 was registered by the police on the report by the accused No.3, in the present calendar case. This is clear indication and implied admission as to occurrence on the particular day. The pleading of the petitioner that the alleged overt acts are only in exercise of the right to private defence to protect his fundamental right is another factor pointing to the presence of the accused during the incident. It is settled position that in a case and counter case has to be determined in a simultaneous trial to determine the aggressors and defenders/retaliators in settling the criminal liability of the parties. Therefore, prima facie triable case is apparent on the face of record. 10. Further, as per the record, the first information report filed by the respondent No.2 was on the same day at 9 P.M., referring the occurrence was at 10.30 A.M. On the other hand, the crime said to have filed by the accused No.3 was dated 17.01.2024 at about 7 P.M. pleading the happening at about 10.00 A.M. Therefore, it is clear that there is about eleven hour delay in filing the report by the de facto complainant and in unison the accused No.3 lodged the report with 9 hours delay. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, solely basing on the delay in filing first information statement, drawing conclusions would be unjustified, for the reasons that the petitioner’s relied complaint is also referring to the same occurrence at 10 A.M. and the investigation is at initial stage. 11. Further the contest that to effect the employment prospects of the petitioner this false case has been foisted is also found unacceptable for the reasons, the case and counter case are signifying the incident as per the petitioner the notification for the employment was in December, 2024; whereas the issue and the first information report was in the January, 2020. Further the contest that to effect the employment prospects of the petitioner this false case has been foisted is also found unacceptable for the reasons, the case and counter case are signifying the incident as per the petitioner the notification for the employment was in December, 2024; whereas the issue and the first information report was in the January, 2020. Therefore, even drawing inference that only to defeat the employment opportunity the respondent No.2/de facto complainant foisted the case in January itself, is beyond imagination. 12. That apart, as per the charge sheet there was injured and also eye witnesses of the persons who were in neighbouring lands at relevant timeand the doctor’s evidence who treated the injured. Thus, in this alleged factual position, it cannot be held that the criminal proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreck vengeance against the accused on the personal grudge. 13. So far as the authorities relied on by the petitioner are concerned, in Thavalingam (first supra), the prosecution case that the accused No.1 therein took a photograph of the victim while she was taking bath, the High Court having considered the trial Court’s judgment of conviction and approval of the appellate Court judgment by considering the delay in filing the first information report and lack of material evidence has created serious doubt about the veracity of the allegations, set aside the conviction. 14. In Hasin Jahan (second supra) it has been held that the delay in first information report especially when there is existing counter case while considering the allegation of verbal abuse, assault and criminal intimidation, facts and circumstances shall be examined carefully, especially when the first information was lodged after three months to rule out malice and vendetta. 15. In Sugurappa (third supra) it has been held that in a case where the allegations of house trespass, intentional insult and criminal intimidation alleged, the Court by observing that the complaint was filed as an off shoot of a civil dispute with unexplained delay in lodging the first information report, quashed the criminal proceedings. 16. In Manik Taneja (fourth supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the situation for the offences under Sections 353, 503, 506 IPC held that mere criticism of a public official without threats or use of force does not constitute an offence. 17. 16. In Manik Taneja (fourth supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the situation for the offences under Sections 353, 503, 506 IPC held that mere criticism of a public official without threats or use of force does not constitute an offence. 17. In Ashok Kumar Gupta (fifth supra) it has been held that while considering the allegations of fraudulent action in filing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the plea that the accused had dishonestly filled in the blank cheque held that where it is apparent that the action of the complainant and acceptance of the appellant’s proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act, quashed the proceedings. 18. In Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited (sixth supra) it has been held that where the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or with an ulterior motive for wreck vengeance with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the proceedings were quashed. 19. In Munshi Ram (seventh supra), it is a case where the dispute regarding the possession of evacuee property which was sold in public auction, the Court after analysing the facts and circumstances held that the appellants therein to defend their possession was held to be within the right to private defence, however observed that to have possession and eviction, it is necessary to take up legal proceedings in accordance with law and the burden of proof in case of right of private defence lies on the accused. 20. In Imran Pratapgadhi (eighth supra) where the first information report was posted on social media platform featuring a poem, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution confers Fundamental Right to all its citizens to freedom of speech and expression, the machinery which is part of State including police are bound to abide by the Constitution and noting the absence of evidence showing the social media post incited hatred, quashed the proceedings in the crime stage. 21. For the variance in the situations examined in the authorities and the facts and circumstances of the instant case are distinguishable. 22. For the afore-noted reasons as the materials in the present case are indicating prima facie case for trial, the prayer for quashment of the proceedings remains unacceptable. Resultantly, in the absence of merit for admission, this petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. 22. For the afore-noted reasons as the materials in the present case are indicating prima facie case for trial, the prayer for quashment of the proceedings remains unacceptable. Resultantly, in the absence of merit for admission, this petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.