The criminal petition challenging an FIR was dismissed. The Court held that truth or falsity of allegations is for investigation and declined to conclude that the present report was a counter-blast for another reported simultaneously by the accused.
Criminal Petition No.7458 of 2012 is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
Criminal Petition No.7458 of 2012
O R D E R:
The petitioners 1 to 4/A.1 to A.4 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 354, 448, 323 and 379/34 IPC. On reading of contents of report given by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, I find all the ingredients for the above offences in this case. There are allegations of tearing of jacket and fisting on breasts of the de facto complainant’s lady family members. There is also a threat that the accused would lodge a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the present report is counter-blast for another report given by the accused against the de facto complainant’s party under Sections 323, 506/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The present report was registered earlier to the report of the accused party. Both were
registered simultaneously. Truth or falsity of the allegations in these F.I.Rs is a matter for investigation. At this stage, this Court cannot conclude that one case is counter-blast for the other. I find no reason to interfere with investigation of the case at its threshold.
3. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J
Dt. 17th October, 2012
PNV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can conclude that one FIR is a counter-blast for another at the threshold stage of investigation.
Whether there is reason to interfere with the investigation of the case.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioners 1 to 4/A.1 to A.4
De facto complainant
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
