Disposed

Lanka venkata Laxmi Narayana v. The state of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Aug 2024CRLP/1764/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the charge sheet in a criminal case arising from a property dispute. Relying on precedent requiring lengthier adjudication, the Court directed the trial court to conduct a full-fledged trial.

What did the court decide?

High Court directed the trial court to conduct a full-fledged trial and disposed of the criminal petition. -

Lanka venkata Laxmi Narayana Vs The state… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32se ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1764 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

Lanka venkata Laxmi Narayana, S/o Sri ram Murty^Aged 55^years,Occ Bussiness R:/o Ho.No. 13-14-23, P andT colony Gadiannarram^Village Dilsuknagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District

¶9

Laknka Hari Narayana @ Shivanarayana murthy, S/o^{L.Lakshminarayana} (correct name is Lanka Shiva Narayana Murty) Aged 19 years, Occ Student R/o Ho.No. 13-14-23, P and T colony Gadiannarrarn Village Dilsuknagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District

¶10

Lanka Vijaya Vara Lakshmi, Wo L.Lakshmi narayana Aged 50^{years, Occ} house wife R/o Ho.No. 13-14-23, P and T colony Gadiannarram^Village Dilsuknagar lvlandal Ranga Reddy District

¶11

...Petitioner/Accused No.1 to 3

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The state of Telangana, represented by Public Prosecutor^High Court^of Telangana at Hyderabad

¶14

2 P.V Rama Devi, Wo P.V Bala Subramanyam^{Aged 53 years house wife R/o} Ho-No 11-62 Pragati Nagar, Gaddiannararn, Saroornagar^{R.R Dist.}

¶15

...De-facto Complainant

¶16

3 The station house officer, NCH Ranga Swamy C.l of^Police. Saroornagar Police station

¶17

4 Jairam, S.l of Police,Presently working in Uppal P.S Rachakonda,^{R.R Dist}

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,^{the HighCourt maybe} pleased to quash the charge sheet dated nil in CC.No.630 of 2018 on the file^of Xl Metropolitan magistrate court cyberabad, at L.B nagar,^{R.R District in the} interest of^justice and equity.

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶21

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 all further proceedings in CC.No.630 of 2018 on the file of Xl Metropolitan magistrate court cyberabad, at L.B nagar, R.R District in the interest of justice and equity.

¶22

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Manik Prabhu, Advocate for the Petitioners and Ms. S Ir/adhavi, Assistant public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri M.V. Raja Ramu, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

I I

¶25

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1764 OF 2019

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Criminal Petition is filed under Secti on 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the charge sheet filed against the petitioners/Al to A3 in C.C.No.630 of 2018 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar (for short, "the trial Court") for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506, 509 rlw 34 of IPC.

¶30

Heard learned counsel lor the petitioners/Al to A3; Ms. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.l-State; and Mr. M.V. Raja Ramu, Iearned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant. Perused the records.

¶31

The brief facts of the case are that since there are some property disputes between the de-facto compiainant alnd the petitioners herein, on 22.05.2018 at around 8:45 p.m. at the residence of the de-facto complainant situated in Pragathi Nagar Colony in the presence of her younger

¶32

¶33

¶34

EW,J CrI.P.No.1764 of 2019

¶35

¶36

brother LW3-Murali Krishna, her elder brother/ 1"t petitioner herein along with his wife and two sons, keeping in mind old rivalry, started abusing LW3-Murali Krishna. During that time, the d.e-facto complainant anri her parents came out of the house and questioned, for which the petitioners along with child in conflict with law grew wild and caused simple hurt to the de_facto complainant, abused her in filthy language, insulted her and threatened her with dire consequences. Basing on the complaint of the de-facto complainant, a case was registered in Cr.No.331 of 2018 by the Station House Officer, Saroor Nagar police Station. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioners/A I to A3 for rhe offences punishable under Sections 324, SO4, 506, 509 r/w section 34 of IPC and the satne was numbered as C.C.No.630 of 20 18 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar and a separate charge sheet has been filed against the child in conflict with raw on the file of learned II Metropolitan Magistrate. Challenging the proceedings initiated against them in c.c.No.630 of 2018,

¶37

EW,J CrLP.No.1764 oJ 2019

¶38

the petitioners have filed the present Criminal Petition seeking to quash the same.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners/A 1 to A3 contended that partition suits are pending between the 1st petitioner and his brother/LW3 in O.S.No.25O of 2Ol5 and O.S.No.461 of 2015 before the Civil Court,^Rangareddy District. The 1"t petitioner is contesting the suits,^which has become an eyesore to his father, brother/ LW3 and sister/2na respondent/ d e-facto complainant and Cr.No.331 of 2018 was filed by respondent No.2 at the instance of LW3-Murali Krishna with a malafide intention to harass petitioner No.1 and his family on false allegations. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that criminal prosecution cannot be used as an instrument or weapon to satisfy private vendetta with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners to come to their terms. He, therefore, prays to allow the Criminal Petition.

¶40

Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by the^learned counsel for

¶41

¶42

EW,J crl.P.No.1764 oJ 2019

¶43

the petitioners and contended that uniess and until a fullfledged trial is conducted, the truth will not come out and hence, sought for dismissal of the Criminal Petition.

¶44

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusing the material available on record, it appears that the matter is pending for quite a long time. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika, Infrastructute Pvt Ltd, as The State Of Maharashtra and, otherst, this Court is of the considered view that the matter requires adjudication at length. Hence, the trial Court is directed to conduct a full-fledged trial and after examining oral and documentary evidence available on record, shall pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible.

¶45

7 . With the above direction, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. However, appeararlce of the petitioners/A1 to A3 before the trial Court is dispensed with during the

¶46

'^{(2020) r0 sccr 18}

¶47

EW,J crLP.No.1764 oJ 2019

¶48

¶49

course of trial, except as and when specifically required by the trial Court.

¶50

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶51

closed.

¶52