Dismissed

Bhukya Balu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Aug 2022CRLP/2083/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench High Court of Telangana dismissed three Criminal petitions seeking to quash proceedings against three accused in a rape and intimidation case. The Court held that mere lack of delay or non-receipt of jagra by an accused does not justify quashing when participation in the settlement is alleged and the nature of the offence is serious. No grounds for Maradanian power were found.

What did the court decide?

Petitions for quashing criminal proceedings against Accused Nos. 3 and 4 were dismissed as lacking merit.

Bhukya Balu Vs The State of Telangana — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2046 OF 2022

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2069 OF 2022

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2083 OF 2022

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2046 OF 2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

Bhukya Venu @ Guguloth Venu Gopal, S/o Balu, Aged about 31^years, Caste Lambada Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o Bethole, Mahabubabad District

¶11

...PETITIONERYACCUSED No.4

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶14

Banoth Jyothi, W/o Ramesh Aged about 27 years, Occ. Argl. Rl/o Sankriya Thanda,Mahabubabad Mandal and District

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in PRC No. 65 of 2021 in FIR No. 79 of 2021 on the file of the Vl Addl. Sessions Judge Court at Mahabubabad in the interest of^justice .

¶17

l.A. NO: 2OF 2022

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay of all proceedings including appearance of the petitioner/ Accused No. 4 in. PRC No. 65 of 2021 in FIR No. 79 of 2O21 on the file of the Vl Addl. Sessions- Judge Court at Mahabubabad pending disposal of the above petition in the interest of justice.

¶19

¶20

This Petition cc nrng on for hearing,upon^perusing the lt/lenrorandum of Grounds of Criminal t etition and upon hearing the argumr:nts of llri JOGRAIT/ TEJAVAT,Advocate fc' the Petitioner and the Assistant Putrlic P'osecutor on behalf of the Respr ndent No.1 and of Sri. B.BALAJI ,aCvo(;ate for the Respondent No. 2

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION I lC': 2069 oF 2022

¶22

Between:

¶23

Banothu Venkatesl , S/o Ha t)ya, Aged about 28 years, Oaste. Lambad, Occ Agriculture, FJo Nar dya Than d a, Rajalipet, Mahabubabad^tf st'ict.

¶24

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1

¶25

A{D

¶26

'1 . The State of Tel rngana , Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Hir;h Court of Telangana, Hyd >rabad.

¶27

Banoth Jyothi, \ //o Ramesh, Aged about 27 years, Occ. Arg ., FJo Sankriya Thanda, Mahab rbabad Mandal and District.

¶28

...RESPOND E 'I'I:;/C()MPLAINANT

¶29

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that i1 the circumstances stated in the Memor: ndum of Grounds of Criminal Petrtion, ltre High Court may be pleased to quash proceedings in PRC No. 65 of 2021 ir F lR Nlo. 79 o'f 2021 on the file of the Vl r ddl. Sessions Judge Court at Mahab,uba l-,ad in the interest of^justice .

¶30

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶31

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying thal n the circumstances stated in the Memor rndum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, tne High Court may be pleased to stay tf all proceedings including appearan(:() of the petitioner/ Accused No 1 in PF C No. 65 of 2021 in FIR No. 79 of 2Ct21 on tlre file of the Vl Addl. Sessions Jud, e Court at Mahabubabad pending d sgrosal of the above petition in the intere.. I of justice.

¶32

This Petition :oming on for hearing, upon perusing lhe Memorandum of Grgunds of Crimina Petition and upon hearing the argurnents of Sri JOGRAM TEJAVAT ,Advocak for the Petitioner and the Assistant Fublic Prosecutor on behalf of the Res,ondent No. 'l and of Sri. B.BALAJI Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶33

CRIMINAL PETITIOI I I,IO: 83 0F 2022

¶34

Between:

¶35

Bhukya Balu, S/o Amar Singh Aged about 35 years, Cast€). t-ambada Occ. Social Service, Rl/o Hari asthanda H/o Rajolu of Kuravi lt/andal l/ahabubabad District.

¶36

...PETITIONERYACCUSED No.3

¶37

AND

¶38

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶39

Banoth Jyothi, Wo Ramesh Aged about 27 years, Occ. Argl. Fl/o Sankriya Thanda, Mahabubabad lvlandal and District.

¶40

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶41

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in PRC No. 65 of 2021 in FIR No, 79 of 2021 on the of the Vl Addl. Sessions Judge Court at Mahabubabad in the interest of^justice .

¶42

l.A. NO: 2OF 2022

¶43

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all^proceedings including appearance of the^petitioner/ Accused No. 3 in PRC No. 65 ol 2O21 in FIR No. 79 of 2021 on the file of the Vl Addl. Sessions Judge Court at Mahabubabad^pending disposal of the above petition in the interest of justice.

¶44

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri JOGRAM TEJAVAT, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'l and of Sri.B.BALAJl Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶45

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶46

¶47

THE HON BLE DT.JUSTICE CHILLAKU]? t;tIl!t,{L.,'tHA

¶48

CR.I\IINAL PETITION No.2O46 OF i>.C'22 CR |IIIINAL PETITION No.2O69 OF ir.Cr'.z2 CR TMINAL PETITION No.2O83 OF i2Cl:2i2

¶49

COMMON C RDER:-

¶50

Heard the submission of Sri Jograrn Tr:^jzLr;rt, learned counsel ap ;earing for the petitioners in rr..l th e three Criminal P rtitions, learned Assistant f'ubhc Prosecutor representin ; the State and Sri B.BaIaji. kr;;rrrr:d counsel appearing f, r the 2"d respondent/ de facto co rrLll lainirnt.

¶51

Seekir g to quash the proceedings thar .r re pending against the petitioner who is arrayed as a,:r:used No. 1 1l-t P.R.C.No.6[ of 2O2l that is pending before t]r,: Cor-rrt of VI Additional iessions Judge at Ma,habubat,ad, C).:1.P.No.2069 of 2022 is I led. Seeking the same relief, tht: p(.titicner/A-3 moved Crl.^).No.2083 of 2022. In the santt: :lanner, the petitioner/ r-4 moved Crl.P.No.2046 of 2022.

¶52

The submission of the learned c,lr-l:.sel for the petitioners in all the three cases is that the p(lr-- I'ioners have not comrr itted any offences whatsoever and indeed,

I I

DT.CSL,J Crl.P.;-os.20J6. :069 and 20E-] of 201:

¶57

Accused Nos.3 & 4 are innocent and there is inordinate delay in lodging a complaint. The Medical Oflicer, who examined the 2"d respondent/de facto complainant, did not trace out any incriminating material ald further, there are no a-llegations that a-re directed against accused Nos.3 & 4 and therefore, the proceedings are iiable to be quashed.

¶58

Vehemently opposing the said submission, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that ir-r the complaint itself, the reasons for delay are u,ell explained and further, all the witnesses examined supported the contention of the 2"d respondent/ de facto complainant.

¶59

The submission of the learned counsel for the 2na respondent/ de facto complainant is that the petitioners have committed heinous offence ald hence, the proceedings should not be quashed.

¶60

The facts of the case in brief as could be perceived through the contents of the charge sheet are that, the 2"d respondent/ de facto complainant is a married woman She has two daughters. As on the date of incident, she

¶61

¶62

-l

¶63

Dr.CSl..J Crl-P-Nos.:0{6. 206, rnd l'}81or 201l

¶64

was carrying two months pregnancy. llerse]l and her husband are having agricultura,l lands at the c,utskirts of Sankriya tha rcla. Accused No.1 is also having zrqricultural lands there. The 2"d respondent used r-o visit their agricultural arrds with the goats to graze. Acctrsed No. 1 was observir g her movements. He developerl lrst on her ald decidec to fulfi1 his lust ald was vr-a it-ing for an opportunity. On 20.O2.2021, the 2"d respondr'nt left her house nith t re goats and when she passecl c<:rt;rin distance from Sankri 'a Thanda, Accused No.1 rusherl tr,u,ards her, got her lifte< and took her to a babble tree arrd though she was scream ng, he outraged her modesty. On healing her cries, the nr ighbours rushed and caught Accusr:<l N:.1 redhanded. W rite they all were taking Accusecl No.1 to police station, me, nwhile, accused No.2 met them. /.,:cused No.1 requested I ccused No.2 to settle the mat.ter b-y corLductirig panchayat. Accused No.1 assured that he rvc,r-rld arrange expenses t r him and to other elders. On t)rat, Accused No.2 cal1ec his associates i.e. A-3 to A-9 arrrl all of them stopped tl e 2"4 respondent/de facto corn;tlainant and others anr they all threatened them. DrLr: to fear of

¶65

¶66

DT.CSLJ (:rl.P.Nos-:0.16, 2069.,rd 20Ei ot :0ll

¶67

accused Nos.l to 9, they stopped and kept quiet. A panchayat was held and in the panchayat, Accused No.l was advised to pay Rs.4,50,000/- to the 2na respondent/ de facto complainant towards compensation. All of them warned the 2"a respondent/ de facto complainant and others that if they would disclose the same to anybody or lodge a complaint, they would see their end. On the same day, Accused No. I gave Rs.SO,OOO/- to A-2, A-4 to A-9 towards their expenses and out of the a-rnount, all of them took Rs.5,OO0/- each. Accused No.7 took Rs.2O,00O/-. However, Accused No.3 did not take any amount. Subsequently, the 2"d respondent and her husband approached LW3-Boda Shanker and informed him about the incident. On that, LW3 took the 2.d respondent and her husband to police station and got lodged a complaint. As per the conclusion of the Investigating Agency, the accused No.l has committed offences punishable under Sections 376, 506, 109, 2Ol read with 34 of IPC and that accused Nos.2 to t have committed offences punishable under Sections 506, lO9, 2O1 read with 34 of IPC.

¶68

¶69

DT.CSL.J Crl.P Nos.:0{6 ::t159 an,t l08l of l0:l

¶70

No dr ubt, AS rightly contended bv th e learned counsel for the petitioners, in the charge sltet:t- itself, it is narrated th rt A-3 has not received any amoul-rt. However, that does r 01- mearl that he has not particil>erted in the panchayat ,r did not restrict the movemerll.s of de facto complainan and others or that, he has not threatened, as alleged by t re prosecution. Furthermore, tl-re ;rlleg,ation is that they hz ve threatened the de facto complainzrnt and her husbalrd ar d that they have a-lso screenect ttx: e,.idence. These are t re issues which requires lull lenqttr of trial for the Court t ) come to a conclusion with regat'cl 1.o the guilt or otherwis : of the accused. As of n'rw, tlrr:re are no grounds, m lre so, justifiable grounds, so as L) quash the proceedingr . Time and again, the Honble Apt:x Court has clearly indj :ated that the power that is granted by the legislature^r Lnder Section 482 Cr.P.C. to the High Court has to be exerr ised sparingly and that too when convincing grounds arr projected.

¶71

In thr case on hand, this Court does rrot lind any such^grour ds so as to exercise the saicl r:.ttrarrdiqarv

¶72

¶73

Dr.Csl_J Crl.P.Nos.2016. 2059 !nd 2083 of 2022

¶74

power. Therefore, this Court is of the view that alt the

¶75

three Criminal Petitions lacks merits.

¶76

Resultantly, all the Criminal Petitions are dismissed.

¶77

10, As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if arry

¶78

pending, shall stand closed.

¶79

¶80

Sd/.K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// c1p SECTION OFFICER

¶81

To,

¶82

The Vl Additional Sessions Judge Court at l\4ahabubabad.

¶83

The Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at t\4ahabubabad^.

¶84

The Station House Officer , lVlahabubabad Police Station , Mahabubabad.

¶85

Two CCs to Assistant Public Prosecutor, High Court forthe State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶86

One CC to SRl. JOGRAM TEJAVAT Advocate [OPUC]

¶87

One CC to SRl. B.BALAJI ,Advocate [OPUC]

¶88

Two CD Copies

¶89

One Spare Copy *y

CDL

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010&2022

COMMON OF DER

CRL.P.No.20t 6,2069 & 2083 of

¶96

<br>(_ F I .t i.,
I
,{r
k
si'''
022
{'
)v'
' .. I //i_-1 jll r-
'-:=::=ii'-

¶97

DISMISSINGTHE C] II,{INAL PETITION.

¶98

Bhukya Balu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhukya Balu v. The State of Telangana

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

Racha Narender Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Dasyam Pavan Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Pothedar Srinivasulu Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Katagowni Shiva Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Banothu Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Bhukya Venu , Guguloth Venu Gopal Vs The State of Telangana