ORDER:

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in Crime No.942 of 2021 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Vijayawada City, registered for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602.

2. Heard Sri K.V.Aditya Chowdary, learned counsel for the Petitioner(s) and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.1.

1

for short ‘Code’ for short ‘IPC’

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners are falsely implicated in this case, they have nothing to do with the offence, there are no specific overt acts attributed against them and prays for quashment of the case against the Petitioners.

4. Contrasting the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that complaint would show allegations attracting the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC, there are specific overt acts against the Petitioners. As the offence under Section 324 read with 34 of the IPC has been registered against the Petitioners, specific overt acts to attract the offence under Section 324 of the IPC against the Petitioners are not required to maintain a case. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further brought to the notice of the Court that it is a case and counter case on the complaint of the Petitioners, a case has been registered against the complainant i.e., Respondent No.2 herein in Crime No.943 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 324, 506 and 509 of the IPC.

5. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the case is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons:

1. To attract the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of the IPC, the prime ingredients are that there is simple injury with dangerous weapon.

2. A fair look at the complaint would show, the allegations that Respondent No.2 was beaten with stick and he suffered simple injury.

3. As rightly put by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the offences alleged attributing common intention, the presence of persons itself is sufficient.

4. As there is prima facie material which requires trial, this is not a fit case for quashment.

6. The evaluation of the merits of the allegations made on either side cannot be resorted to at this stage. Hence, this Court came to the conclusion that the allegations made in the complaint, are sufficient enough for the trial to be taken up and thereby, the proceedings are not advisable to be quashed as it is not open to the Court to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of the Petitioners and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage since the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioners are prima facie made out. Needless to say that this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., cannot conduct a mini trial and as such, the petition deserves dismissal.

7. In that view, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

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

___________________________________ VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 03-07-2024 JLV HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.2055 of 2022 Dt.03.07.2024 JLV