Dismissed

Mohd Sajeed, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC26 Nov 2014CRLP/9228/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings for offences under IPC and Arms Act, holding that the case involves complex disputed facts and is not a fit case for quashing at the pre-trial stage.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition for quashing of proceedings against the accused in C.C. No. 819 of 2010 is dismissed.

Mohd Sajeed, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.9228 of 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.819 of 2010 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶4

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the charge sheet do not constitute the offences alleged. He further submitted that the second respondent foisted a false case against the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the charge sheet prima facie constitute the offences alleged.

¶5

A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner, who is sole accused, is facing trial in C.C.No.819 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 504 and 323 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act. As per the allegations made in the charge sheet, on 15.11.2008 at 11.10 AM, when the second respondent, who is a Doctor, giving treatment to one Jangaiah in his clinic, the petitioner went there and beat the second respondent. It is further alleged that the petitioner also threatened the second respondent with dire consequences by showing a sword. Whether the second respondent filed false case against the petitioner or not will come to light during the course of trial only. Various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner involves complexity of disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶6

The Investigating Officer, after satisfying himself with the material collected by him, laid charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 504 and 323 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act. Learned Magistrate, after satisfying himself with the material

¶7

produced before him, has taken cognizance of offences referred supra against the petitioner. Absolutely, there is no material on record to establish prima facie that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence against the petitioner in violation of the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. The material placed before the court is prima facie sufficient to proceed further against the petitioner.

¶8

a) In Madhu Limaye Vs State of Maharashtra^[1] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

¶9

“At the outset the following principles may be noticed in relation to the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court which have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably barring a few exceptions:-

¶10

(i) That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party;

¶11

(ii) That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

¶12

(iii) That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the code”

¶13

b) In Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu V Kovvuri

¶14

Satyanarayana Reddy^[2] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as

¶15

under:

¶16

“It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code (Vide Kavita v State, 2000 Crl.L.J. 315 (Delhi) and B.S.Joshi v State of Haryana, 2003 (1) ALD (Crl).842 (SC) = (2003) 4 SCC 675 = AIR 2003 SC 1386= 2003 AIR SCW 1824). If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, especially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.”

¶17

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principles enunciated in the cases cited supra, I am of the

¶18

considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at pretrial stage.

¶19

Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the criminal petition, shall

¶20

stand closed.

¶21

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J November 26, 2014. YS

¶22