Allowed

K.Nirmala v. State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC5 Mar 2021CRLP/542/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused for criminal intimidation. The court found contradictions in the charge sheet regarding the complainant's presence and noted a history of disputes and counter-cases between the parties.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C. No. 702 of 2020 pending before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, are quashed.

K.Nirmala Vs State of Telangana and another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIFTH^{DAY OF MARCH}

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN}

¶6

CRIMINA^{L PETITIONNO} 542 0F 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

K.Nirmala, W/o,^{Ranjith Kumar,Age 37.years,Orcc} .House^{wife' R/o' Ambedkar} Nl;i;; ;"6.r,^{Malkajgiri.SecundeEbad,Ivledchal District'}

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

1 State of Telangana,^{Rep.by it's. Public Prosecutor'HighCourt Buildings at} Hyderabad.

¶12

2 i,TI;T,$:1*,YBRf;',13i??;t33;3u,n',".,1'off3^{#:H::':nl?#''";'Bi''lli'uo'}

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated intheMemorandumofGroundsofCrimina|Petition,theHighCourtmaybepleased toquashtheproceedingsinCC.No.T02l2o2oonthefileofthellAdditionalJunior Civil Judge^{-Cum- XIX Metropolitan Magistrate' Cyberabad at Malkajgiri}

¶15

t.A. NO:'l^OF2021

¶16

PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated intheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybepleased to stay all^{furtherProceedingsincluding the appearance} Of the Petitionerⁱⁿ C.C.No.702 of^{2O2O on the file of llAdditional} Junior Civil^Judge Malkajgiri Pending -Cum-^{XIXMetroPolitan} Magistrate,CYberab4l^at Criminal Petition.

¶17

This Petition coming^{on for hearing'upon perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of^{criminalPetitionand upon hearing the arguments ofS ritt'P Sujatha'} Advocate for^{the Petitionerand the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the} Respondent^{No 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No 2'}

¶18

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.542 OF 2O2L

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.702 of 2O2O pending on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XlX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri.

¶23

Heard Mrs.P.Sujatha, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.702 of 2020. TLre offence alleged against the petitioner herein is under Section 506 IPC. The allegation levelled against the petitioner-accused is that the de facto complainant-second respondent (L.W. 1) is the victim in the present case and also in C.C.No.777 of 2018 pending on the file of the leamed II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XlX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, which was registered under Sections 504 and 506 IpC. The said case was posted on 06.12.2079. T!;,e de facto complainant-second respondent and L.W.2 were appeared in the said case. Thereafter, while both were returning to their home, and when they reached near the lift in the said Court complex, the petitioner came close to the de facto complainant-second respondent and L.W.2, used filthy language saying that they came to Court by taking

¶25

¶26

money for giving evidence in the Court and she has threatened them with dire consequences stating that she would file a complaint against the de facto compla.inant_ second respondent and others under the SC/ST Atrocities Act. Thus, the petitioner herein committed an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC.

¶27

Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of de facto complainant-second respondent.

¶28

Section 503 IPC deals with criminal intimidation, as per which whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of arry one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Section 506 IPC deals with punishment for the said criminal intimidation.

¶29

6 Smt.P.Sujatha, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the de facto complainant-second respondent and L.W.2 in C.C.No.777 of 2Ol8 was not present on 06.12.2019 as alleged in the complaint dated lO.I2.2Ol9, In proof of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner has

¶30

¶31

filed copy of the docket proceedings dated 06. L2.2OL9 in C.C.No.777 of 2018. The said proceedings would reveal that accused and L.W.2 were present and bind over in view of letter received from DLSA. By referring to the same, Iearned counsel would submit that the d.e facto complainant_second respondent (L.W. 1) was not present before the said Court. In spite of it, she has lodged the present complaint against the petitioner herein as a counter-blast and to implicate her in the present crime falsely.

¶32

The de facto complainant_second respondent in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by the police, she stated about the threats made by the petitioner and also further stated that the said fact was brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate, who in turn, sent the d-e facto complainant-second respondent to police Station, Neredmet, for the purpose of enquiry. The said fact was not mentioned in the complaint dated 06.12.2019 lodged by the de facto complainant-second respondent. Thus, there is contradiction.

¶33

L.W.2 - Andalu also gave her statement recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.p.C. in the very same lines as was given by de facto complainant-second respondent.

¶34

A perusal of the record would also reveal that on the complaint lodged by the petitioner herein, the very same Police, Neredmet, have registered a case in Crime No.2O7 of

¶35

¶36

2018 against^{ttre de} facto^{complainant-second respondent} and others^{for the offencesunder Sections342'504 read with} section^{34 IPC and Section 3(i)' (r)' (s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST} PoAAct.Learnedcounselforthepetitionerwouldsubmit thatthePolicehavefiledfinalreporttreatingitasiackof evidence.^{Therefore, the petitioner herein had fited a protest} petition and^{the same is Pending'}

¶37

I O. Learned^{counselfor the petitionerwould further} submit that^{the petitioner hereinhas lodged a complaint} dated^{17.07.2020with the very same Neredmet Police Station} in respect^{of the iliegal acts of Mohan-tenantat the instance} of the de facto^{complunant-second respondent-ownerof the} said house.^{It appears that the petitioner i5 a lsnant of t};e de} ./acto^{complainant-second respondent'}

¶38

Thus,^{there are disputesbetweenthe petitioner} and the^de facto^{complainant-second respondent with regard} to the said^{tenancy' There are casesand counter-cases'The} petitioner^{herein had alreadyiodged a complaintwith the very} same^{Police,who in turn' registered the Crime No'207 of} 2018 for^{the offences underSections342' 504 readwith} Section^{34 IPC and Section 3(1)' (r)' (s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST} (POA) Act and^{the same is closed' The petitioner herein has} filedaprotestpetitionandthesameisstiilpending.Her presence^{in the Court below on 06'12'2}lg in C'C'No'777of} 2018^{was not established' The Investigating Officer'basingon}

¶39

¶40

the complaint of the de facto complainant-second respondent and relying upon the statements of the second respondent and L.W.2 who is also L.W.2 in C.C.No.777 of 2018, filed the charge sheet. There is no mention in the charge sheet that they have made enquiries with regard to the presence of the de facto complainant-second respondent in C.C.No.777 of 20t8.

¶41

Admittedly, the petitioner herein is an accused in C.C.No.777 of 2018. L.W.2 was present on 06.12.2019 and she was bound over basing on the letter said to have been received from DLSA. The Police have not recorded the statement of any independent witness except recording the statements of the de facto complainant-second respondent and L.W.2 who is a-lso L.W.2 in C.C.No.777 of 2018. The contents of the charge-sheet lack the ingredients of Section 506 IPC. Thus, viewed from any angle, the present proceedings in C.C.No.702 of 2O2O pending on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XlX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, are liable to be quashed on more than one count.

¶42

In the light of the above discussion, this Criminal Petition is aliowed and consequently the proceedings in C.C.No.702 of 2O2O pending on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, are quashed.

¶43

¶44

Pending Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shali aiso stand closed in the iight of thi S rder.

¶45

S rder.

¶46

,ASS'SIAN 7 REG'SIRAR IITRUE COPYII

¶47

SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

'l . The ll Additionar Junior.civir Judge -cum- XrX Metroporitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at [Malkaiqrrr.

¶50

The Station House O'fiicer, Neredmet^police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate.

¶51

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶52

One CC to Srfif. Sujatha, Advocate IOPUCI

¶53

Two CD Copies CDL

gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510312021

ORDER

{ tre i, IA 74r
()
s23) t/tAB 2021
*
I
.nf .s

¶62

CRLP.No.542 of 2021

¶63

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION.

¶64

%r
0

K.Nirmala v. State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Nirmala v. State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chintha Uma Devi Vs The State of Telangana Rep by its P.P

Toddy Taper Co-Op.Society,Rep.by President, Mahabubnagar. Vs the Proh.and Ex.Superintendent,Mahabubnagar Dist.

Suresh Kumar Reddy Vs the State of Telangana

Manupati Shiva Krishna Vs State of Telangana

Chittakala Satish Vs Smt. Spandana, And Anothe

P. Prabhaker and another Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others