Dismissed

V.Dhanunjaya Naidu v. K.S.Vasanthi

Telangana HC21 Aug 2014CRLRC/1288/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Magistrate's order quashing a private complaint alleging police assault during elections. The Court upheld the quashing order due to insufficient evidence, contradictions between the FIR and medical records, and the nature of the injuries. The Court found the complaint to be a counterblast stemming from a false FIR. The

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; order of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate confirming dismissal of the private complaint upheld.

V.Dhanunjaya Naidu Vs K.S.Vasanthi — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1288 of 2014

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This revision, under Section 397 & 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C), is filed by the petitioner against the order dated 02.05.2014, passed by the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chittoor, in C.F. No.2847 of 2013.

¶4

2) The petitioner herein filed complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C, before the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chittoor, against the respondent Nos.1 to 4 alleging that on 27.07.2013 he along with his senior paternal uncle went to his native village, i.e., Vedagirivari Palle Village on a car bearing No.TN 02 S 4276 and he parked his car inside the polling booth, to cast the vote. Thereafter, while he returned to his car, observed that the police patrolling vehicle parked across his car, as such he requested the S.I of Police, who is Respondent No.1 herein, to give way, thereby the latter shouted, caught hold his shirt and pulled him and beaten him with hands and sticks; Respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein also beat him brutally with lathies on the instructions of Respondent No.1. Later, the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital in 108 ambulance. The petitioner further alleges that Respondent No.1 also threatened him and his wife, if they make any complaint at hospital against her, she will encounter him. The petitioner further stated that some of the villagers recorded the said incident in their cell phones. Thereafter, the petitioner made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, but so far no action has been taken. The incident was covered in all newspapers, hence the same was known by C.I and D.S.P; they visited the village and assured the public that they will take action against the Respondents, who are involved in the incident. The petitioner further alleges that Respondent No.1 registered a false complaint against him in

¶5

Crime No.64 of 2013 dated 27.07.2013 and the said report is false and fabricated since the Head Constable 2917-B.Harinath, who was said to have received and registered the Complaint, was on bandobasth election duty and the petitioner enlarged on bail in the said crime and further moved to this Court for quashing Crime No.64 of 2013, upon hearing the arguments, this Court (another bench) granted interim stay until further orders. After recording the sworn statement of the Complainant, the learned Magistrate decided that there is no prima-facie case is made out against the respondents, and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.

¶6

3) Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

¶7

4) Now, the point that arises for consideration is

¶8

(i) Whether the impugned order of the learned Magistrate in not taking cognizance of the private complaint case against the accused persons/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein is unsustainable and requires interference while sitting in revision and if so with what observations?

¶9

(ii) To what result?

¶10

POINT No.1:

¶11

5) As can be seen from the material on record, the private complaint filed was dated 16.04.2014 more than 8 months after the alleged incident dated 27.07.2013 on the eve of the Surpanch elections at Vedagirivari Palle to which the native place of the complainant, he came with his family and his paternal uncle to cast his vote in the car bearing No.TN 02 S 4276 and the duty police Sub-Inspector and the constables kept their vehicle, it appears as per the complaint, across from which the complainant could not take out his vehicle by reversing or otherwise and allegedly asked to remove the police vehicle from which the Sub-

¶12

Inspector allegedly enraged and beat him by abusing as to how dare to ask to remove their vehicle and instigated the constables, the other accused, who beat indiscriminately. For his saying immediately he was shifted to hospital by 108 ambulance by the persons gathered there in the village and admitted in the Government Hospital and treated, but for O.P chit of the Government hospital and he did not file any record of the nature of injuries and other particulars muchless to take cognizance for the offence under Section 307 or 326 I.P.C read with 506 I.P.C and as pointed out by the learned Magistrate also in his order, P.W-1 in the course of his sworn statement deposed that in the scuffle to escape from the police, he ran away and fell down on ground and importantly as pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the crime No.64/2013 of Irala Police Station registered against this complainant covered by Ex.P-4 complaint, immediately with no lapse of time for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 353 and 509 read with 34 I.P.C and the contention of police therein also that he assaulted the police officials on duty in connection with the election dispute and he fell down and sustained injuries in the course of that assault when he was chasing to caught hold of arrest or the like and his admission of fell down, received head injury according to the said F.I.R is from the fall. The learned Magistrate therefrom saying the version in Crime No.64/2013 is probabilising and the Ex.P-3, O.P. Chit so called private hospital certificate of Chennai shows a laceration at forehead and it is simple and had he been really beat as per his version in the belated complaint after due deliberations; it could have been with severe external injuries on the body as the complaint filed was dated 16.04.2014 whereas the alleged incident was dated 27.07.2013 and allegedly immediately he was taken to the Government hospital in showing the O.P. chit which does not reflect any other injuries if true and beaten black and blue and the six photos showing the scuffle also probabilising the version in Crime No.64/2013 on showing the facts to his sitting with deliberations after long delay as a counter blast to the case

¶13

importantly the complainant’s wife said to be present and after the occurrence approached with written report, the Superintendent of Police, however, the Superintendent of Police was not available and the staff of Superintendent of Police office not inclined to receive the complaint. Had it been true as observed by the learned Magistrate, he could ultimately send through registered post to the Superintendent of Police or to the Deputy Superintendent of Police or to the Circle Inspector or to the Station House Officer and what he sent to the Superintendent of Police was registered post only on 01.08.2013 about four days after the alleged occurrence and it is observed that there is local news paper clippings that no way helpful that he is the aggressor or the police party from the scuffle taking place, even from Crime No.64/2013 registered against him for assaulting the police and obstructing their election duties and when they are public servants on duty sanction is required even in the factual matrix and another independent witness worth examined and even P.W-2 so called tea vendor nearby allegedly tried to interfere and sustained injuries not proved by any wound certificate to believe so also of P.W-3 and that from the alleged report to the version in quash proceedings to the complaint version and the chief-examination or with defence and for all these reasons concluded that the complaint is outcome of untrue versions as a counter blast and thereby nothing to serve to take cognizance against the police officials on duty and the complaint version of for the mere asking to move the police vehicle for taking out his vehicle for reverse could not be the outcome of such incident, but for as in Crime No.64/2013. For all these reasons when the Magistrate in his elaborate order running in 6 pages, 15 paras came to the conclusion for this Court while sitting in revision, there is nothing to interfere, but for to say none of the observations will influence either defence of this complainant in the Crime No.64/2013 or to vindicate any other available remedy.

¶14

6) Having regard to the above, the revision petition is dismissed by

¶15

confirming the order dated 02.05.2014 in C.F. No.2847 of 2013 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chittoor.

¶16

7) The pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this revision shall stand closed.

¶17

_________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RĀO, J

¶18

Date: 21-08-2014 ksh

V.Dhanunjaya Naidu v. K.S.Vasanthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Dhanunjaya Naidu v. K.S.Vasanthi

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

chowhan lokya naik Vs The State of telangana

Dasireddy Anjaneya Raju , Pullayya Vs The State of A.P.

G.Vishamber Vs State of A.P.

P.Krishnama Naidu, Vs The State of A.P.

Burugu Sri Devi Vs The Public Prosecutor

Mohammad All , All Bai, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh