Dismissed

R. Mallesh Yadav v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Sept 2022CRLP/2785/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the accused challenging a charge sheet under Sections 323, 506, and 384 IPC. The Court found strong prima facie material in the complainant's statement and medical certificate and held that the allegations required a full trial.

What did the court decide?

Order dismissed the criminal petition and refused to quash the charge sheet.

R. Mallesh Yadav Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^325e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEIV1BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2785 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1. R. Mallesh Yadav, S/o Late Narasimha Yadav, Aged 56 years, R/o H.No.1-71o22l8l9lB, Ramnagar Musheerabad, Hyderabad, presently Rl/o Flat No. 505, Garonda Permal Apartments Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad.

¶9

R.Sandhya Yadav, W/o tVlallesh Yadav, Aged 52 years, Occ House Wife R:/o 1 1.No.1 -7 -102218/9/8, Ramnagar, fvlusheerabad, Hyderabad, presently Rio Flat No. 505, Garonda Permal Apartments Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad.

¶10

R.Sai Bharath Kumar Yadav, S/o Mallesh Yadav, Aged 26 years, Occ Private job R/o H.No.1 -7 - 1 0221819/8, Ramnagar Musheerabad, Hyderabad presently Rl/o FIat No. 505, Garonda Permal Apartments Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad.

¶11

R.Sailaja Yadav, D/o fvlallesh Yadav, Aged 24 years, Occ Private Job Fl/o FIat No.505, Garonda Permal Apartments Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad.

¶12

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.1 to 4

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

...RESPONDENT

¶16

Smt. R. Iylamma, W/o Late Narsimha Aged 78 years, Occ House hold R/o H.No.1 -7 -1 02218/9/8, Hari Nagar, [/usheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶17

..,RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶18

Petition under Section 482 oI 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 C.C.No.595 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioners /Accused Nos.^'1 to 4.

il lr

I.A. NO:1 oF 2019

Petition under Section 482 0f cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in C.c.No.595 of 201g on the file of the court of the XV, Additionar chief Metroporitan Magistrate, Hyderabad pending disposal of the criminal petition.

¶24

This^petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and the Assistant pubric prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.i and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2785 of 2Ol9

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This petition is filed by the petitioners/Al to A4 in C.C.No.595 of 2018 on the file of XVII Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, questioning the charge sheet filed against them for the oflence under Sections 323, 506 and 384 IPC.

¶30

The facts in brief as can be gathered from the charge sheet are as under:

¶31

The de-facto complainant is have four sons and two daughters and all of them have married and residing separately. On 11.03.2018 at 6.00 p.m., A1, who is the elder son of the de-facto complainant, his wife/A2, his son/A3 and his daughter/A4 all of them came to the house of the de-facto complainant and asked her to sign or put thumb on some white papers. When she refused to sign, all of them forced her to sign, even then when she has refused to sign, she was confined made her to sit and A1 has beat her on back side with hands and iegs and forcibly

¶32

¶33

got her thumb mark put on the white and on typed papers, all of them have also threatened her with dire consequences, abused her in filthy language and left after taking the thumb mark. Later her second son came there on which a complaint is filed before the police, police have referred her to Ghandi Medical hospital.

¶34

Basing on the complaint the police have registered a case in Crime No.110 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 323 and 506 IPC on 11.03.2018. prior to that the police have referred that since Sections 323 and 506 IpC are non-cognizable offences the police have requested the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction to accord permission for investigation and on receiving the permission, investigation was taken up and FIR was registered. Statement of the de-facto complainant and others were recorded under Section 161 Cr.p.C., and got the medical certilicate from the Ghandi Medical hospital which shows that the injuries received by the de-facto complainant are severe in nature. On completion of investigation charge sheet is filed against all the petitioners/A I to A4,

¶35

¶36

cognizance of which was taken for the offence under Sections 323, 506 and 384 IpC.

¶37

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/Al to A,4 filed this petition on the following grounds:

¶38

Even if all the contents of the charge sheet are accepted, no offence is made out against the petitioners. There are disputed between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, thereby a false case has been foisted. Police have not properly investigated, continuation of proceedings will amount to abuse of process of law ald prayed the Court to allow the petition and quash the criminal case against them.

¶39

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶40

Now, the point for determination is whether the charge sheet against the petitioners in C.C.No.595 of 2O1g can be quashed?

¶41

9 The basis for the police to registered the case and investigate into the offence is the complaint filed by the de_

¶42

¶43

facto complainant and her^{statementwhich are to the} effect that A1 her elder son,^{42 her daughterin law, A'3} and A4 are grand children^{came toher house on} 11.03.2018 at about 6.00^{p.m., and asked her to put} thumb mark on white and^{typed papers for whichshe has} refused. On such refusal all^{of them abused her in lilthy} language, threatened her^{with dire consequences and they} also went to the extent of^{beating her with halds and legs'} Even then rvhen the^{de-factocomplainanthas refused to} put her thumb mark on white and^{typed papers, the} accused have forcibly took^{her hand and got her thumb} mark hx on the papers.^{Therefore, basing on such} complaint, police have^{registered acase and started} investigation. The statements^{of the witnesses also are in} consonance with the^{statement of de-facto complainant'In} addition to that, the de-facto^{complainant was also sent to} Ghandi Medical hospital,^{wherein the doctorsexamined} her and gave a certificate^{that she has received simple} 1nJ ur1es.

I \

I I

The contention of the petitioners on the other hand is that the entire complaint field by the de_facto complainant is false, no such offence has taken place and since there are propert5r disputes between them, a faise case has been loisted.

¶48

I 1 . On considering the contents of the complaint ald on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears that there are property disputes between the de_facto complainant on one side and the petitioners/Al to A'4 on other side. However, merely because there are property disputes, the contention of the petitioners that the contents of the complaint and charge sheet are false, cannot be accepted.

¶49

It is a case where there are number of facts alleged by the de-facto complainalt and disputed by the petitioners. Therefore, the trial Court is required to conduct full fledged trial in respect of the alleged offences under Sections 323, 506 and 384 IPC and after framing of charges and after recording the evidence, the trial Court will come to a conclusion as to whether the offences have really

¶50

¶51

¶52

committed by them and during the course of trial, the petitioners q,i1l have a defence to cross examine the witne sses.

¶53

This Court while considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot invoke the extraordinar5r jurisdiction when there is a strong prima facie material against the petitioners. Therefore basing on the material available before the Court in the form of charge sheet, this Court is ol the opinion that this is not a fit case where the petition can be allowed and the cha,rge sheet against the petitioners cal be quashed.

¶54

In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶55

Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed

¶56

To,

¶57

//TRUE COPY//

¶58

SD/.N. RAJ GOPAL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I lt)

¶59

SECTION OFFICER

¶60

The XVll Additional Chief M_etropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, IMusheerabad F.S., UvOeiaOaO. 3. One CC to Sri Kowturupavan Kumar, Advocate iOpUCi4. Two ccs to the Pubric^prosecutor, High court foi ihe sGte of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies 6. One Spare Copy gbr A\v

¶61

HIGH COURT

¶62

DATED: 2710912022

¶63

1 ti r-iT4IA
I <br>(
J
L; 2 E 0E[ ?[77 :
7

¶64

ORDER

¶65

CRL.P.No .2785 of 2019

¶66

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶67

R. Mallesh Yadav v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Mallesh Yadav 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

N. Manohar Reddy Vs Syed Fhazil

The State of Telangana Vs Vangalpudi Vijaya Kumar

Rjeshwariraman Vs State of Telangana

Marella Venkata Rama Susheela Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Gone Anantha Reddy ,AnumulaAnantha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Rajagoni Narendar Goud Vs The State of Telangana