O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner, who is accused, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.280 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda, for the alleged offences under Sections 354, 324, 384, 506 and 290 of IPC.

Heard, Sri Vangara Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent-

State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this case is counter-blast for an earlier case that was lodged in C.C.No.56 of 2017 and other case and he prays for quashing. In the alternative, he submits that the statement of LW.1 clearly shows that the offence under Section 354 of IPC is not made out, as there is no attempt to outrage the modesty of the woman. Learned counsel submits that Section 324 of IPC is not attracted since the injury is a simple injury. He points out that the accused is in fact the injured and that in his eyes the chilly powder was sprinkled. He also argues that except for a simple injury, no grievous injury has been reported. Therefore, even Section 324 of IPC according to him does not survive.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the mere fact that the simple injury has been sustained is not a ground to quash the entire proceedings. It is his argument that once voluntary hurt is caused by an instrument used for stabbing, cutting, etc., an offence is attracted. Learned Public Prosecutor points out that admittedly in this case a knife was used. Coming to the offence under Section 354 of IPC, learned Public Prosecutor argues that the language used can be seen from the statement and also the tearing of the blouse, etc., would lead to a conclusion that there is outraging of the modesty. He also submits that because the threatening words were used and stating that the complainant was found alone and that she would be killed, etc., lead to a conclusion that the offence under Section 506 of IPC also occurred.

This Court after hearing both the learned counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor, who submitted the counsel for the 2nd respondent, notices that the statement of the complainant does support the events as they stated to have occurred. The accused is supposed to have accosted the complainant; that he abused her in filthy language, that he stated he will kill her, tore her blouse, bent her neck and attempted to stab her with a little knife. While it is true that in the other criminal case in Crime No.49 of 2018 of Ghantasala Police Station, there is an allegation that the accused therein, who is the 1st respondent therein has sprinkled chilly powder into the eyes of the complainant/petitioner, the fact, however, remains that these are matters which need to be decided during the examination of the witnesses. The manner/sequence in which they occurred would be determined in the course of the trial. The fact remains that a knife was used; LW.6 is a doctor, who examined the complainant; LWs.3 to 5 are said to be eye witnesses, who corroborate LW.1. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the material available does not lead to inescapable conclusion that the offences have not taken place. This Court is of the opinion that this is not the stage to quash the entire proceedings. These are matters which need to be established during the course of trial. The opinions expressed are for the disposal of this petition alone and should not influence the trial Court in any manner.

Therefore, the criminal petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J Date: 23.01.2020

PGR