Dismissed

Smt. Sweta Agarwal and another v. The State Of Telangana and another

Telangana HC6 Jul 2022CRLP/5860/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a charge sheet for obstruction and mischief. The Court held that prior orders protecting specific survey plots were not applicable to the current case involving different plots. Contradictions in police statements were held to be for the trial court to consider, not a ground for quashing.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 5860 of 2022 dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications closed without costs.

Smt. Sweta Agarwal and another Vs The State Of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5860 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

'1. Smt. Sweta Agarwal and another, Wo. Vikas Agarwal, Aged about 44 years, Occ- House Wife, Rl/o. lncome Tax colony, Road No-12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

¶8

Smt. Neena Goyal, Wo. Sanjeev Goyal, Aged about 53 years,Occ- House Wife, R/o. H.No- 8-2-309/8, Road No. 14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Nos. Al & A2

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. The State Of Telangana and another, Rep. By Pubilc Prosecuter, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶12

..RESPONDENT No.1

¶13

Sri C. Mahipal Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Govt. Employee (Girdgavaru) at 0/o Tahsildar Serilingampally Madal, Ranga Reddy Dist. R/o. H.No. 2-19, Medipally, Medchal

¶14

.RESPONDENT No.2

¶15

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 Charge Sheet Vide CC. No. 5529 of 2021, daled 31/1012021, against Accused No. 1 and 2 for the offenses Uls.447,427,186 R/w. 34 IPC on the file of Hon'ble Vl Addl. AJCJ-cum- Xll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally.

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances slated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC. No. 5529 of 2021 , dated

¶18

3111012021, aginst Accused No.1 and 2 on the file of Honble Vl Addl. AJCJ-cum Xll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally .

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SUBRAMANYAM DARABOINA ,Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

IHON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5860 of 2022

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard the submission of Sri Daraboina

¶25

Subramanyam, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor who is representing respondent No. 1.

¶26

Seeking to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos. I and 2 in CC.No.5529 of 2O2I that is pending on the file of the Court of VI Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, th e pre sen t Criminal Petition is filed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offences u,hatsoever, much less the offences punishable under Sectio ns 447 , 427 and 186 read with Section 34 IPC and that the defacto complainant who is a Tahsildar has foisted a false case against the petitioners and indeed, there are orders thzrt

¶28

¶29

Dr.CSL, J CrtPNo.586O of 2O22

¶30

are given by this Court in favour of the petitioners and therefore, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.

¶31

Opposing the said submission, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the alleged orders that were issued by this Court have no bearing over the facts of the present case basing on which charge sheet is filed and hence, the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners before the Court basing on the charge sheet are liable to be continued

¶32

Sals unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution as could be perceived through the contents of the charge sheet is that on 06.ll.2O2O, the defacto complainant, who is an employee (Girdgavaru) in the Office of Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal, the Irrigation Department Engineer, the Mandal Surveyor and others in discharge of their duties were removing the illegal constructions which were erected in Survey No.32 of Guttabegumpet Village and at that time, the petitioners obstructed the duties of those persons. Thus, b-v the contents of the charge sheet it is clear that constructions that were sought to be removed

¶33

¶34

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.586O of 2022

¶35

I I

¶36

are situated in Survey No.32 of Guttabegumpet. The orders that are relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are as under: -

¶37

(i) The Order rendered by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2O2O in W.P.No. 18921 of 2020, dated 21.tO.2020.

¶38

(ii) The Order rendered by this Court in WP.No.97 1 1 of 2O2O dated O3.7.2O2O.

¶39

(iii) The Order rendered by this Court in I.A.No.2 of 2O2O in WP.No.971l of 2020, dated 17.8.2O2O.

¶40

As regards the first order that is rendered b-y this Court in tA.No.1 of 2O2O in WP.No.1B921 of 2020, dated 2l.LO.2O2O, the same was issued in respect of the plots in Survey Nos.30 and 31 of Guttabegumpet Village. In the said order, it is specifically mentioned that the petitioners sought protection only against demolition of structures constructed over the subject plots said to be situatecl iIt Survey Nos.30 and 31 of Guttabegumpet Village. In the second order i.e., in WP.No.971l of 2O2O dated 03.7.2020 also, the propert-y dealt with is the plots in Survey Nos.30

¶41

¶42

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.5860 of 2022

¶43

ard 31 of Guttabegumpet. Same is the case wittr the order that is rendered in I.A.No.2 of 2O2O in WP.No.971l of 2O2O dated 17.8.2O2O.

¶44

7 . As earlier mentioned, the property involved and the alleged illegal constructions that were sought to be removed by the officials are in Survey No.32 of Guttabegumpet village. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the orders rendered by this Court which are referred above cannot be taken into consideration to hold that the charge sheet is unsustainable under law. No other grounds are projected or urged which warrants interference of this Court. This Court does not find an-v abuse of process of law or that quashing of proceedings is required to meet the ends of Justlce.

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioners projected that the statements given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the witnesses who were examined by Police are contradictory to each other. Even though the said fact is taken to be true and correct, it is not a factor to be considered for quashing

1 i

I i i

D..CSL, J C PN,.586O of 2022

¶51

of proceedings. In case, the witnesses give evidence contradictory to the version that is given by them under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is a factor to be taken into consideration by the trial Court concerned for taking a decision with regard to proof of guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Quashing of proceedings against the petitioners at threshold is undesirable. Therefore, this Court is of the vieg, that this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶52

The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶53

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶54

?/1

¶55

To,

¶56

//rRUE coPY//^{ASs'srAN?D#fl+HX*}

¶57

SECTION OFFICER

¶58

1 The Xll Additionat Metroooti 2 rnes-tationHlu;'6HJ$Tr:|Xt',,"ff nilff atparrv,cvberabad 3 4 ff : 33Jt :# r.rrr?f^yAI IAi"^{rjArffior ff , Advocate} ro^p u cl Telangana High court for the-state of 5 Two CD Copies"uiva"rro""o^rofiEcUToR' 6 One Spare Copy SB +

HIGH COIJRT

DATED:061AT 12022

ORDER

CR.LP.No.5860 of 2022

¶64

'(
'(
'11]il
:)oa, [ 5 SEP
.:

¶65

DISMISSING THE CRIMINA[. PETTTON WITHOUT COSTS

¶66

J fl
dt)

Smt. Sweta Agarwal and another v. The State Of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sweta Agarwal and another v. The 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Jahangir Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Abdul Kaleem Vs The State of Telangana

Tejavath Surender, And 4 Others Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

Sowjanya Vs The State of T.S. and Another

Sri.Pola Saikumar Vs The State of Telangana

Bandiki Venkateswarlu Vs State of Telangana