Dismissed

Rondla Deepi Chandan @ Rondla Deepu Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Oct 2024CRLP/1728/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings initiated against the petitioners for offences including stalking, assault, and trespass. The Court held that the allegations, though disputed, disclosed a cognizable offence and required trial, rejecting the plea that the complaint was frivolous.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed; the Court directed the concerned authorities to dispose of the filed charge sheet expeditiously.

Rondla Deepi Chandan @ Rondla Deepu Reddy Vs The State of… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDTJREABITTE

¶3

OF TELANGANA

¶4

FRIDAY-,THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FO'R

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶7

cRt M ]NAL P ETITION NO :1728 0 F 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Rondla Deepi Chandan .@ Rondla Deepu Reddy, , S/o. Nadipi Gangaram, R6 H G:;i, cn1,* w,rglil5i,r'*iJrnrI

¶10

t[:fifi3f?"trui]:e Kondta Govardhan, Govardhan,

¶11

z. Kondta Govardhan, Govardhan, _,^S/o,. .Rondla^Gangaiah, 1q9.^{39 yrs,} Occ. Agricutture,

¶12

fl:,;t*"^{0,, chinna warsot s,rr*01-ini), ri;,;;d;;,f6j, ,liJ,"#ii"}

¶13

Rondla Shyam Sunder, , Slo. Rondla Nadipi Ganga Reddy, Age. 44 yrs, Occ. +Sffi,j|ff T&^{.,HNo'1-21t2, '' wJr,i"iltritond" tr,ll, *izamaoao} 1cy,

¶14

...PETITiONERS/ACCUSED No.1 _3

¶15

AND

¶16

The State of Telanoana, Through p.S Sirikonda, Represented by its public prosecutor, Hish c"ourr ior th;Gi;i.;f"#;;ffi a, Hyderabad.

¶17

RESpoNDENT No.i/COMpLAtNANT

¶18

Gouru Gangabapu, ,.s/o Bhumaiah , Age. 4r yrs, occ. Agricurture, R/o. Chinna Watgot, Sirikonda (M), NizamadJ iii i",.rnrn, _ 503165.

¶19

...RESPONDENT No.2/DEFACTO /COMpLAtNANT

¶20

Petition under Section -4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum or Grounas "i cri#irli'ti"tition,rhe High court may be preased to ca, for the records in rrn ruo.iiz"ii'zazs dt.12.11.2023on the fire of Police Station Sirikonda and quash.^{- ' '} -^{-' L.,}

¶21

l.A. NO:'l oF 2024

¶22

Petition under section .4g2 0f G.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds "i cri'iirli p"tition, the High court may be pleased stay all further.proceedings in rti No..llz ot zozs d1.12.11.2023 on the file of Police Station Sirikonda.

¶23

This^petition coming on. for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminat .Fetition "; ';;; 'ri}ring the argumeflts of Sri M.KALYANA RAMA fnrSHr.rn ,Al;di""';, ,'i" "",i,,on.r^{and Sri D.Anrn} Kumar' the Additionar pubric prosecui;; GG; oi'oiart of the Respondent No.1 and none appea red for the Responaent f.io.Zl^{-" -"'} r

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

-Ji

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SMT.^{JUSTICE K. SUJANA}

¶27

CRIMINAL PE"IITION No.1728 of^2o24

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Criminal Petition is hled'under Section^{482 of Code} of Criminal Procedure, 1973^(for short 'Cr.P.C.J^{to quash the} proceedings ag,ainst the petitioners/accused^{Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime} No.172 of 2O2t3 of Sirikonda^{Police Station, NizamabadDistrict,} registered for the offences^punishable under^{Sections 354D,} 323,448 and 4'27 read with 34^{of the IndianPenal Code, 1860} (for short 'lPCJ.

¶30

The brief facts of the case are that^{respondent No.2} /^de facto^{complainantIodgeda complaintbefore the Police stating} that petitioner No.l is following his^daughter in the^{name of} love, as such, he warned him not to follow^his daughter,^{but he} did not listen t,o his words and used to^{roam around his house.} It is further stated that on 12.7L.2O23, the^wife of respondent No.2 informed him through phone that^{petitioner No.} 1^stood near his house and looking at his house, as such,^respondent No.2 went near petitioner No.l and asked him why^{are you} looking at our residence, due to which, petitioner No. 1 attacked respondent No.2 with knife and petitioner Nos.2 arrd 3, u,ho are

¶31

¶32

SKSJ C.l.P-No.772a of 2024

¶33

the brothers of petitioner No. 1, trespassed into his house ald damaged the window glass and beat respondent No.2 with hands. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No. 172 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 354D, 323, 448 and 422 read with 34 of IpC.

¶34

Heard Sri M. Phanindra pavan Kashyap, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, Iearned Additional public prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. l-State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.

¶35

lrarned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are vague and baseless and that the same do not constitute the offence as alleged by respondent No.2. Further, initially, petitioner No. 1 lodged a complaint before the police and as a counter blast, respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint. Respondent No.2 is having an intention to kill petitioner No.l, as such, he filed the present complaint with false allegation. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶36

¶37

sKs) Crl.P.No.7728 of 2024

¶38

On the c,ther hand, learned^{Additional Public Prosecutor} submitted that the allegations against^{the petitioners are} serious in nature, which requires trial,^{as theytrespassedinto} the house of respondent No.2 and^{petitionerNo. 1 tried to kill} respondent No.2. Therefore, he pralied the Court^{to dismissthe} criminal petition.

¶39

At this stage, it is imperative to note that to^quashthe proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to^see whether the averments in the complaint would pima facie^show that the offence as alleged by the Police constitutes.^Further, while dealing with the petition hled under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration^{the avermetns} made in the complaint ald the statements of the^{witnesses and} if the averment.s made therein do not constitute any^offence,as alleged against the accused persons, -then the^proceedings against the accused are liable to be^quashed.

¶40

Furtherrnore, the^judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sitate of Madhga Pro,desh as. Surendra Xoril, wherein in paragraph No.14, held as under:

¶41

"Th,: High Court in exercise of its^poweis under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a

¶42

'1zolz1^{tO supreme court cases155}

¶43

¶44

¶45

5XS) C.l.P.No-7728 ol 2024

¶46

Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 4g2 Cr.p.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefu[y ald with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, iore so when the evidence has not been coll€cted and produced before the Court and the issues inr.olved, whether factual or legal, are of w.ide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective withou t sufllcient material."

¶47

In the light of the submissions made by both the learned coutrsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that there is case and counter case pending between the petitioner and respondent Ilo.2, Respondeut No.2 questioned petitioner o.l as to why he is harassing and following his daughter. On questioaing the same, petitioner No.l attacked respondent llo.2, due to which, he received injuries. Further, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 trespassed into the house and damaged the window glass and beat respondent No.2. The complaint of respondent No.2 shows that he stabbed the petitioner herein. Since there are serious allegations against the petitioners, quashing the proceedings at this stage, does not arise. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of

¶48

¶49

¶50

sKs) c .P.No.1728^{of 2024}

¶51

¶52

the Delhi High^{Court inKarunkar Patra Vs'Statel} whereunder, in^{paragraph Nos.12and 13 itis obsert/edas}

¶53

follows:

¶54

¶55

'12.^{Tberefore,quashiEgof criminalproceediugsis calledfor} only in a case^{wherethe complaihtdoes notdisclose any} offence, or is^{frivotous, vexatious,oroPPressive'Ifthe} allegations set^{out in the complaiEtdo rotcoEstitutethe} offence of which cognizaace^{has beentakeu by the Magistrate,} it is open to the^{High Court toquashthe saEe'It isnot} necessary that a Ecticulous^{analysis of the case shouldbe} doae before the trial^{to frld out whetherthe caseurouldendin} convictioo ot acquittal.^{If itaPPears on areadiEg ofthe} complaint and consideration^{of theallegationsthereln,in} light of the statenent^{lo.adeon oath that the ingreilientsof} the offence are dlsclosed,^{there would be no justificationfor} the High Court to^irterfere {See^{also KamalShiaaii} Pokorrtekar v. Sto:te^{of Maharashtra} lKanlr,al^Shivqii Pokclrnekal v. State^{of Maharashtro.} 120l9l^{L4 SCC 35O:} l2otel^{4 Scc (Cri) 8zt6ll.}

¶56

A perusat of the^{material-on-recordilr the} PreseEt^{case, ln} this Court's corsidered^{opinloa,reveals that the contentsof} the FIR are sketchy^{innature and are void of any speciflcs} regarding the offences^{which haveallegedly beea committed'} While this Court is cog!:izar,t^{of the fact that aE FIR is rotatr} encyclopedia whlch^{mustdiscloseall facts aaddetails'} however, in the iostant^{case, a barereadingof the impugaed} FIR No.- 89 oI 2O2L^{prima facie indicates that the FIR adses} out ofbald aUegations^{aud contradictorystatenrerats.'}

¶57

¶58

¶59

sKsJ Crl-P.No.172A ol2024

¶60

ii il i

¶61

In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhga Prodesh (supra), this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceediugs against the petitioners and the same is liat{e to be dismissed.

¶62

Accordingly, the crininal petition is dismissed. Since the charge sheet is liled vide C.C.No.72 of 20124 after completion of the investigation in this Crime, the court conserned is ditected to dispose of the said C.C. as

¶63

expeditiously as possible.,

¶64

Sd/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶65

NOTE: This Order is amended as per the Court order dated 24.10.2024 passed in l.A.No. 2 of 2024 in Crl.P.No. 1728 of 2024 by modifying paragraph Nos. 8 to 11 and substituting with Paragraph Nos. I to 1O as pasted above. This amended order substitutes the earlier order despatched on 22.10.2024.

¶66

Sd/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

Iv,.7

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1. The Station House Officer,Sirikonda Polioe Station ,Nizamabad Diskict, 2. One CC to SRI M. KALYANA RAMA KR|SHNA, Advocate tOpUCl 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad[OUTl.

¶72