Dismissed

G.Eswaramma v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC4 Dec 2014CRLP/7018/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition sought to quash proceedings in C.C.No.6 of 2012 arising from a dispute over a cinema lease. The court held that prima facie cases exist, dismissed the motion to quash, but dispensed with the personal appearance of student accused and one cultivator, allowing the trial court to summon them if necessary.

What did the court decide?

The appearance of petitioners A6 to A13 in C.C.No.6 of 2012 is dispensed with, subject to the trial court directing their attendance if necessary.

G.Eswaramma Vs The State of A.P. — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7018 OF 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This is a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr PC’) by the petitioners/A1 to A13 requesting to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.6 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Paderu.

¶5

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-State. None appeared for the second respondent/informant.

¶6

3. The necessary facts for consideration, in brief, are as follows: “The subject matter of the dispute is a cinema theatre. The said theatre was constructed and owned by the mother of the A1. It appears that the said theatre has been leased out to LW7-Bada Nirmala Kiran Kumari. While so, the Joint Collector of Visakhapatnam, pursuant to the lease deeds and the terms of lease, had transferred the B. Form license of Sri Venkata Ramana Theatre, Paderu in the name of the said LW7. On 09.01.2012, the Supervisor of the said theatre i.e., LW1 had lodged a report with the Sub Inspector of Police, Paderu Police Station inter alia stating as follows: ‘LW7, the lessee of the theatre went on a pilgrimage along with her family members. Taking advantage of the said fact, on 09.01.2012 at about 17.00 hours A1 and A2 with their followers i.e., A3 to A13 formed themselves as an unlawful assembly and had trespassed into the cinema hall, with a common object, and had threatened the informant and other employees of the theatre present in the theatre with dire consequences and asked them to leave the cinema hall by further threatening that if they do not leave the cinema hall they would be beaten

¶7

to death, and had also assaulted the LWs 1 to 6, who are the employees of the theatre. When they questioned the highhanded behaviour of the accused, the accused had necked them out and had locked the cabin room and the main gates of the cinema hall and had thus disturbed the peaceful enjoyment of the rights of the lessee.’ On the basis of the said report, the subject case in Cr.No.3/12 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 448, 352, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was taken cognizance for the said offences and the aforementioned calendar case was taken on file. Now the said case is at the stage of commencement of trial.”

¶8

4. The case of the petitioners/A1 to A13 before this Court is that the matter is purely of civil nature and that the dispute relates to the lease of the theatre and that A1 had filed a Writ Petition before this Court expressing a grievance that the Agent of the Government is not considering and deciding the appeal and that the said Writ Petition was disposed of giving directions to the Agent of the Government to dispose of the appeal dated 13.12.2011 filed before him and that not only the said Writ Petition but also various suits filed by both the parties are also pending in Civil Courts and that the present criminal case is instituted against the petitioners/accused as a counterblast and that the present report which set the criminal law in motion was lodged only by a person said to be the supervisor of the Cinema Hall and that LW7, the lessee of the theatre, had suffered an interim order in the proceedings before this Court and that the whole dispute relates to the lease and the extension of the lease and that the A3 to A13 have nothing to do with the case and that the names of the A6 to A13 are also not mentioned in the first information given to the police and also in the statement of LW1 and that the said A6 to A13, who are students, are unnecessarily roped in and that there are no specific averments against them in the first information and that no specific overt acts were also attributed to them except

¶9

making omnibus allegations and that the continuation of proceedings against the accused, particularly, the petitioners/A6 to A13 is an abuse of process of Court.

¶10

5. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused reiterated the above submissions and had submitted that the matters between the parties, particularly the A1 and LW7-the lessee are purely of civil nature and that a civil matter is sought to be converted into a criminal case to make the A1 and her family members heed the demands of the LW7, the lessee, and that with a view to harass the accused even the A6 to A13 who are unconcerned are also roped in and that in view of the pendency of the civil cases between the parties and an interim order obtained against LW7, the lessee, the criminal case is foisted. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, having read the portions of the first information, the charge sheet and the statements of witnesses, had contended that the allegations in the said material record and the evidence collected in support of the averments therein do disclose a prima facie case and that therefore, there is sufficient material before this Court to prima facie show that the accused committed the offences and a case is made out against them.

¶11

6. I have given detailed and thoughtful consideration to the submissions. At this stage, this Court has to consider as to whether the uncontroverted allegations made in the first information and the charge sheet and the evidence collected in support of the same do disclose prima facie the commission of offences alleged and make out a case against the accused. On such consideration, this Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and therefore, there is no case for quashing the criminal proceedings against all the accused/petitioners herein. However, considering the fact that the petitioners/A6, A8 to A12 and A13 are students and the A7 being a cultivator, who is aged 21 years, their alternative request can be

¶12

considered to dispense with their presence in C.C.No.6 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Paderu.

¶13

7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the appearance of the petitioners/A6 to A13 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Paderu in C.C.No.6 of 2012 is dispensed with however, subject to the condition that the trial Court is at liberty to direct the said accused to appear before it and secure the attendance of the said accused/petitioners before it as and when necessary.

¶14

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶15

____________________________ M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J Date: 04.12.2014 MVA

G.Eswaramma v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Eswaramma v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Narasimha Chary, (a-2), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Narasimha Chary,(A-2) Vs State of A.P.

Sura Venkata Ramanamma Vs Soda Venkateswara Achari

M.a.Saleem Vs The State of Ap.

Medini Prakash, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gugloth Babu, S/o. Shankar Vs State of Telangana