Dismissed

Smt. Mahankali Indira Vasundhara and 3 others v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Dec 2022CRLP/2171/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of criminal proceedings against petitioners accused of caste-based assault and intimidation, holding trial necessary to resolve facts.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition dismissed; proceedings against petitioners in SC No.22812019/quashment order not allowed.

Smt. Mahankali Indira Vasundhara and 3 others Vs The… — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:2171 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Mahankali lndira @ Vasundhara, Wo. Jilla Sunil, Aged about 33 years, Occ. Housewife, Rt/o. H.No.7-6l1, lndiranagar, Boduppal, Medipally, Rachakonda,Parents address N/o.H.No.6-6'l,R.T.C,Colony,Near Akshra Concept School, Suryapet(Vand M ),Suryapet Dishict.

¶9

2 Smt. M.Hemalatha, Wo. Prabhakar, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Housewife, Pesent Rl/o. Flat No.404,S.V.K.Towers,Bandari Layout, Nizampet,Hyderabad N/o. Vavilala(V), Palakurthy Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶10

3 Naraboina Prabhakar, S/o. Sailoo Aged about 40 years, Occ. Lecturer, Pesent Rl/o. Flat No.404,S.V.K.Towers,Bandari Layout, Nizarnpet, Hyderabad N/o. Vavilala(V), Palakurthy Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶11

4 Budige Ganesh, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged about 41 years, Occ. GVK. Employee, Present Ryo.G 1 0 1,Rathna^. Nidhi Towers,Opp.ST.Piaus degree eollege, Road No.4,Nacharam,Ranga Reddy District. N/o. Tonda (V), Thirumat0iri (tvt), Suryapet District.

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No. 1 to 4

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

¶15

Smt. Jilla Swapna, Wo. Susil, Aged about 34 years, occ. Housewife, Rl/o H.No.7$/1, lndiranagar, Boduppal, Medipally, Rachakonda.

¶16

.,.RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶17

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 criminal proceedings in SC No.22812019 in Cr.No.59'l/2017 of P.S. Medipally, Rachakonda on the file of the Hon'ble Vll Addl District and Sessions Court for Trial of SC/ST Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar for the offence under sec.323, 448, 506 lPC, 3(1)(r)(s) 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act,2015.

I.A. Oi 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be. pleased to stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners / Accused No.1 to 4 in sc No.228i2019 in ci.No.591/201 7 0f p.s. Medipally, Rachakonda on the file of the Hon'ble vll Addl District and sessions Court for Trial of SC/ST Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar for the offence under sec.323, 448, 506 teC, s(t)(r)(sj 3(2)(va) of SC/ ST ipOn) n"t, 2015.

¶23

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri VEERA BABU GANDU, Advocate for the petitioner and the pubric prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri S.SUMAN, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

¶26

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PDTITION No.21Z1 OF 2OZL

¶27

ORDER;

¶28

This Criminal petition is hled to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A,4 in S.C.No.22g of 2019 in Crime No.59 l of 2OlZ of p.S.Medipally, Rachalonda, on the hle of the VII Additional District and Sessions court for triar of SC/ST Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶29

The case against the petitioners is that they trespassed into the house of the 2"a respondent/defacto complainant, beat her and also her in-laws w,ith sticks, iron rods and threatened in the name of caste as b maadiga lanjadaana, ancl threatened her with dire consequences.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that false complaint was made by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant at the instance of the l"t petitioner,s husbald. Though tJte defacto complainant was not in town, she hled a false complainant. Further, the first petitioner husband,s brother did not want a woman from SC communit5r to be a t-a part of her family, for which reason also, police complaint was

¶31

¶32

filed' The caste certificate liled by the defacto complainant is not a va-lid document and deriberately to harass the petitioners present compraint is filed, as such, the same is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments of Hontrie Supreme Court in the cases of; i) Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra pradesh t(200gl 12 Supreme Court Cases 5311; iit Swaran Singh v. State through Standing Counsel and another [(2OOS) 8 Supreme Court Cases 4351; iiif Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand Il2O2Ol^1O Supreme Court Cases Z1Ol.

¶33

All the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are all facts which can only be decided during the course of trial. Whether ttle defacto complainant at the time of alleged incicient was in town or whether tlie complaint was the outcome of the disputes in the family or otherwise, can only be decided when the witnesses are examined before the Court. Since there are prima facie allegations leveled against t.Ile petitioners, attracting the ingredients of penal provisions, for

¶34

¶35

¶36

// which they are charged, this Court is not inclined to quash the

¶37

proceedings.

¶38