ORDER:

The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2, 4, and 5 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.10508 of 2019, pending on the file of XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. The complaint was filed by respondent No.2/de facto complainant on 01.06.2019, alleging that petitioner No.1 and his associates trespassed into her house at around 7.30 P.M., and damaged movable property. Further, the two persons, namely, Ashviq and Nadeem, were present when petitioner No.1 and his associates trespassed into the house of respondent No.2

3. On the basis of the complaint, which was filed on 01.06.2019 at around 7.30 P.M., a case was registered in Crime No.82 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 448, 427, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

4. The Investigating Officer conducted scene of offence panchnama and after completion of investigation, charge- sheet was filed. In the charge-sheet, the complainant is shown as LW.1, LW.2 is circumstantial witness and son of de facto complainant, LWs.3 and 4 are the panch witnesses, and LW.5 is the Investigating Officer.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that petitioner No.1 lodged a complaint with Shahalibanda Police Station, alleging that Mohammed Bin Rouf, who is the son of de facto complainant, assaulted him along with two others. Police have registered a case in Crime No.81 of 2019, even prior to the complaint being made by respondent No.2 herein. The Police filed charge-sheet in the said case. As a counter blast to the said complaint, the present complaint was filed by the mother of Mohammed Bin Rouf/de facto complainant, who is accused No.1 in Crime No.81 of 2019, filed by the petitioner No.1 herein.

6. Only on the ground that the workers viz., Ashvaq and Nadeem, whose names were specifically mentioned in the complaint filed by the de facto complainant, were not shown as witnesses in the charge-sheet, the proceedings cannot be quashed.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home, [(2019) 11 SCC 706], and the relevant portion reads as under:

“30. It is necessary here to remember the words of this Court in State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy which reads as follows:

“7. ....In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice.”

8. There is no dispute regarding the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the matter has to be decided only on the basis of the facts in a particular case. In the present case, the allegation is that the petitioners have trespassed into the house of respondent No.2 at 7.30 P.M., and damaged the vehicle, furniture etc. Whether respondent No.2/de facto complainant is speaking the truth or otherwise, can only be ascertained in the trial.

9. The case before the Court below shall be disposed off within a period of four months from today, since there are only two material witnesses.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed off. No costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________

K.SURENDER, J Date: 10.02.2025 PNS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL