Lack of substantive evidence in criminal proceedings warrants quashing, preventing abuse of the legal process.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.242 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Vikarabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section s 323 , 324, 354 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.05.2021, respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint with the police stating that on 18.05.2021, her grandsons, Arun Kumar and Goutham Bablu, were playing games when accused A1, A2, and A3 beat the children. When the complainant tried to warn the accused persons against beating the children, they suddenly assaulted her with the intent to outrage her modesty. Upon witnessing the incident, Uppari Anil, Gattumeedi Mogulaiah, and her son, Kavali Ravinder, intervened and stopped the quarrel. It is further alleged that A3 used filthy language and A4 beat her with a stick.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.68 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Section s 323 , 324, 354 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.242 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Vikarabad. Aggrieved thereby, the petitions/accused filed the present criminal petition.

4. Heard Sri Sravan Kumar Purella, learned counsel for petitioners/accused and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1- State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence, and the prosecution has failed to produce substantial evidence to prove the commission of offences attributed to the petitioners. He further submitted that there was a delay of 13 days in lodging the FIR, which, according to him, was done with the intention of falsely implicating the petitioners due to immense political influence and that the petitioners had made representations before the Director General of Police, Telangana State, and the Human Rights Commissioner, Telangana, as they were subjected to social boycott. Therefore, he prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing the present criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the case was registered for the offences punishable under Section s 323 , 324, 354 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and no substantial evidence has been produced for the allegations made in the charge sheet wherein the charge sheet discloses that there is only simple hurt, as such requested this Court for necessary orders.

7. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, the documents filed by the petitioners indicate that the accused were socially boycotted by the de-facto complainant and had submitted representations to the concerned authorities, including the Human Rights Commission and the Director General of Police, Telangana. Furthermore, petitioner No.2 had made a representation to the concerned Tahsildar regarding the alleged illegal construction of a church. In view of the above, the present petition appears to be a counterblast to those actions.

8. However, there is no mention of any injuries sustained by the complainant, nor has any medical certificate been filed to subs