The High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking quash of cognizance proceedings. The court held that sworn statements and witness records showed prima facie material for offences under IPC 326, 324 and 34.
Petition to quash the order of taking cognizance 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
TUESDAY THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2061 OF 2012
Between:
P.B.V.A. Arunakumar @ Arunkumar & Ors. … Petitioners/A2, A3, A4, A8 V/s. Allena Shivadas & Anr. … Respondents/
Counsel for Petitioners : Sri K. Purushotham
Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor
The court made the following : [order follows]
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2061 OF 2012
O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash CC.No. 2 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda, Srikakulam district.
2. The petitioners herein are A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-8. First Respondent herein is the complainant, who gave complaint which is registered as Crime No.80 of 2010 and the police after investigation filed charge sheet referring the case as ‘mistake of fact’. On that first respondent herein filed a private complaint before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda and the learned Magistrate after considering the complaint and other material took cognizance for the offences under section 326, 324 read with section 34 IPC against A- 2, A-3, A-4 and A-8 i.e., petitioners herein. Aggrieved by the same, present Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda.
3. Heard Advocate for Petitioners and learned Public
Prosecutor.
4. Advocate for Petitioners submitted that Police after examining ten witnesses found that there is no material and the alleged offence is a mistake of fact. He further submitted that even medical evidence is not supporting the version of complainant, therefore, taking cognizance against petitioners on the self-same material is not at all correct.
5. I have perused the material available on record. The victim/complainant is a practising Advocate at Palakonda and according to his complaint on 05/09/2010 at about 03:20 p.m., about thirteen persons attacked him and caused injuries besides abusing him in filthy language. According to complainant, the incident is witnessed by five persons and they rescued him from the attack. As seen from the order of learned Magistrate, after recording sworn statement of complaint and also two witnesses, namely; G. Jagdish and A. Kalidas found that there is prima facie material against petitioners herein for the offences under section 326, 324 read with section 34 IPC. Now at this stage, the correctness of sworn statements cannot be decided and it can only be decided at the time of trial. When the sworn statements of complainant and two witnesses discloses prima facie offence, the contention of petitioners that court below without looking into material took cognizance cannot be
accepted.
6. On a scrutiny of material on record, I am of the view that learned Magistrate has rightly took cognizance and that there are no grounds to interfere with the order of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakaonda. Petitioners are at liberty to urge the grounds now raised in this petition before trial court and the learned Magistrate shall consider the same without being influenced by the dismissal of this criminal petition.
7. With the above observation, this Criminal Petition is
dismissed.
______________________ JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR.
03/06/2014 I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2061 OF 2012
Circulation No.189 Date:03/06/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Magistrate taking cognizance on sworn statements that discloses prima facie material.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.B.V.A. Arunakumar @ Arunkumar & Ors.
Allena Shivadas & Anr.
S. Ravi Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
