Dismissed

Sajida Begum, Karimnagar Dt., v. State, Thrps. Jagtial Town and Anr, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC15 Feb 2022CRLP/15084/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of charge sheet due to alleged false complaints by a relative involving physical harm to children. Court examined allegations of cheating and determined that regardless of dispute nature, proceedings could not be quashed as facts could sustain an offence.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was dismissed; interim stay granted earlier was vacated.

Sajida Begum, Karimnagar Dt., Vs State, Thrps. Jagtial… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

c RIMINAL PETITION NO: 15084 OF 2013

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sajida Begum, W/o. l/ustak Hussain, aged 30^{years, Occ: Household,R/o.} Gunj Street, Jagtial Proper and Mandal, Karimnagar 9,:[!qt _ ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

AND

¶9

I The State, through SHO, PS. Jagtial Town, Karimnagar^{District, represented} by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad.

¶10

2 Thaslim Begum, W/o. Late Shaik Javeed, aged 46^years, Occ:^Household, R/o. H.No.5-5-196, Gunj Street, Jagtial^proper and^{mandal, Karimnagar} District'

¶11

...RESP.NDENT

¶12

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the l,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High^{Court may be} pleased to quash the chargesheet in C.C.No.B80 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Judicial IVagistrate of First Class at Jagtial.

¶13

CRLPMP. NO: 13528 OF 2013

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandr.im of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court^{may be} pleased to stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.B80 of 2012 on the file of the Hon'ble Additional Judicial [t/agistrate of First Class at Jagtial.

¶15

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Venumadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf^of the Respondent No.1 and of the Respondent No.2 not appeared either in^person or by Advocate.

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

¶18

¶19

HONOURABLtr DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶20

CRL.P.No.15084 of 2013

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as weil as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, who is representing the 1.t respondent.

¶23

This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the Court to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.8B0 of 20 i 2 which are pending against the petitioner before the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First C1ass, Jagtial, Karimnagar District.

¶24

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are disputes betrveen the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, who is the de facto complainant and basing on the complaint given by the petitioner, a case ls pending against the brothers of the 2"a respondent in C.C.No.772 of 2Ol2 on the file of Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial and likewise basing on the complaint given by the petitioner, a case is registered against the brothers of the second respondent- de facto complainant in Cr.No.41B of 201 I of Jagtial Police Station and therefore,^{16 .'r'1eck}

¶25

Df.CJL,J CrLPNo.15084 of20l3

¶26

¶27

vengeance, lhe de facto complatnant gave a compiaint to the police with false allegations basing on which charge sheet in question is filed, arrd therefore, it has to be quashed.

¶28

Opposing the said submission, learned Assistant public Prosecutor contended that the petitioner/ accused took the children of the second respondent/ de facto complainant, caused burn injuries to their hands and also took them to police and narrated a story and basing on a false statement, those children were sent by Lhe de facto complainant and the acts of the petitioner thus constitutes the offence and hence, the charge sheet should be quashed.

¶29

In the light of the said submission, the point that emerges for consideration is:-

¶30

Whether there exists any justifi.able grounds to exerctse the power granted under Section 482 Cr.P.C and to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.BS) of 2012 on..the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagtial?.

¶31

The crux of the complaint is that on 16.12.2011 tine petitioner/ accused u,ent to the house of the second respondent/ de facto complainant and informed that there is 'karima' at her house and requeste d |ne de facto complainapt

¶32

L rl_l',t\o I )t1t\4 0l :u 1J

4-t

to send her children. Basing on the said request, the de facto compiainant sent her children. Thi: petitioner made those children to eat something and thereafter took those children to the Additional Superintendent of Police and gave some representation. The petitioner caused burn injuries over the hands of those children. The children escaped and reached the house

¶37

In the charge sheet, the Inspector of Police made a mention that the petitioner/ accused, u'ho is having disputes with her brother-in-law, took alr'ay the children and produced them before the Additional Superintendent of Police saying that the children belongs to her. It is also mentioned that the petitioner/accused is absconding.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above set of facts do not constitute the olfence punishabie under Section 420 IPC.

¶39

This Court is not in total agreement with the submissions of the learned counsel petitioner. Section 420 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing deliver_r, of propertl'. The act of cl.reating is defined under Section 415lPC. u,hich reads as fo11ot,s:

¶40

¶41

DT.CSL,J Crl.P.No.15084 ot20l3

¶42

¶43

¶44

"Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or- intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omisston causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to .cheat,,."

¶45

Section 417 IPC prescribes punishment for cheating.

¶46

"Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.,,

¶47

Thus, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionaily induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, would fall under Section 415 IpC punishable under Section 417 IPC.

¶48

For what offence the Court took cognizance of the offence is not clear as per the material available on record. Charges would be framed basing on the materia_l produced by the prosecution. Therefore, olly on the

¶49

ut,LsL,J CrLP.No.15084 of20l3

¶50

¶51

¶52

ground that the acts do not squarely fall under the purview of the offence under Section 42O lPC, as^per the contents of the charge sheet, the charge sheet cannot^be quashed when a less graver offence is made out in the contents of the charge sheet. Therefore, this Court^linds 11-I no justifiable grounds to quash the^proceedings C.C.No.8B0 of 2012 on the file of the Additional JudiciaL Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

¶53

1 1. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted on 18.12.2073 shal1 stand vacated.

¶54

Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall also

¶55

stand closed.

¶56

SD/.T.KRISHNA KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To,

//TRUE COPY//

SECTI b4s[,,..*

1 The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jaqtial. 2 The S-tation_House Officer,iagtial Town^police Statioi, Jagtial. 3 One CC to Sri K. Venumadhav, Advocate tOpUCl 4 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court foithe State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 5 Two CD Copies 6 One Spare Copy s br

$uv-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1510212022

/a -t r1E o ,,.r /.6
o B
7
,I
oo
t09f':,,,1 I ;l

¶67

ORDER

¶68

CRL.P.No.15084 ot 2013

¶69

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶70

@.r.^v2..,t^t 2i.t-

Sajida Begum, Karimnagar Dt., v. State, Thrps. Jagtial Town and Anr, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajida Begum, Karimnagar Dt., v. State, Thrps. Jagtial Town and Anr, Rep Pp.

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

Karanam Srinivasa Rao Vs N.Veeraiah and Another

K. Raghu Rama Krishna Raju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr. Dinesh Kumar Loya, Hyd Vs Sri Chatthubhuj Panwar, Hyd

P.Saibaba , Raju, Nizamabad., Vs State of Ap. Rep. Pp and Anr.

Sanda Sreeramulu Vs Sanda Somakka and Anothers

Challa Laxmipathi, and 3 Others, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.