Delay in lodging an FIR undermines its credibility, and general allegations without specifics can lead to quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

V.Sujatha, J.

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.335 of 2019, before Alipiri Police Station, Tirupathi Urban for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323 , 506 r/w 34 IPC and under Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r),3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST POA Act.

2. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 4 & 6 and the respondent No.1 is the de-facto complainant. The respondent No.1 had lodged a private complaint on 18.07.2019 alleging that she is studying 4^th year LLB and her husband is working at Amara Raja Factory and are staying as tenants in the house of the petitioner No.1. While so, due to some reasons best known to them, when the petitioner No.1 asked the de-facto complainant and her husband to vacate their house, the de-facto complainant filed a suit in O.S.No.81 of 2017. Thereafter, when the petitioner No.1 received summons in the aforesaid case, a rental agreement was executed between both the parties with the intervention of the elders, wherein the petitioner No.1 agreed to continue the de-facto complainant and her husband as tenants till 22.04.2020. Subsequently, after completion of one year, the de-facto complainant found eggs, sticks, saffron along with lemon, salt, hairs etc., in front of her house and when she questioned the petitioner No.1, an altercation took place between them and the petitioner No.1 beat the de-facto complaint and abused her in the name of her caste. Alleging the same, the de-facto complainant filed a complaint before the NHRC. Thereafter, on 14.02.2019, the de-facto complainant received a phone call, wherein she was demanded to vacate the house. As such, the de-facto complainant along with her family got shifted to Yerramitta from Cherlopalli and after shifting, she noticed that some of the household articles are missing. Alleging the same, the complaint dated 18.07.2019 vide FIR No.335 of 2019, before the Alipiri Police Station, Tirupathi Urban for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323 , 506 r/w 34 IPC and under Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r),3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST POA Act was filed by the de-facto complainant and the same is being challenged in the present Criminal Petition.

3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating contentions raised in the petition has further contended that the alleged offence as stated by the de-facto complainant had taken place on 23.01.2019 at about 12.30 p.m. and the present complaint was lodged by the de-facto complainant on 18.07.2019 and as such, there is nearly a delay of five and half months in filing the complaint by the de-facto complainant. Further, the de-facto complainant, in her complaint dated 18.07.2019, had nowhere stated the particulars of time and date as to when the alleged offence has been taken place. Therefore, the averments made by the de-facto complainant in her complaint dated 18.07.2019 are vague and bald. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed against the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are allegations as against the petitioners in the complaint. He submits that the provisions of law indicated in the charge sheet may be looked into by the Court to come to a just conclusion with regard to the culpability of the petitioners. As such, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. When the petition came up for admission on 29.07.2019, this court has passed the following order:

“…But, in view of the questions of fact and law raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there shall be an interim stay against any coercive steps including arrest of the petitioner in connection with Crime No.335 of 2019 of Alipiri P.S., Tirupati Urban till 23.08.2019. The questions of fact and law that are raised deserve investigation.”

7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both p