THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.1205 of 2022 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, (now I- Additional Junior civil Judge cum I Additional Judicial magistrate of First Class), Malkajigiri, for the offences under Sections 447, 504 and 506 read with 34 IPC.

2. Heard Sri D.V. Ramana Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein is accused No.3 and that there is no specific allegations against the petitioner to attract the offences alleged against him. He further submitted that the petitioner is a government employee and has not committed any such act to attract the ingredients of trespass, intimidation or causing grievous hurt. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution could collect the injury certificate issued by the doctor, which proves the injuries on the de facto complainant and that there are specific allegations against the petitioner in the complaint, but the charge sheet is not filed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 324 IPC, and that the prosecution could gather ample evidence to prove the offences under Sections 447, 504 and 506 IPC against the petitioner and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The allegations in the complaint and the recitals of the charge sheet point out that the de facto complaint and his family members on one side and the accused on the other, are claiming the same subject property and that on the alleged date of offence i.e. 07.04.2022 while the de facto complainant and the others were working in the site, the accused picked up quarrel with them. The allegations do point out the alleged offences against the petitioner herein. Though there are no specific allegations for the offence under Section 324 IPC against the petitioner, he is facing the allegations under other sections as discussed supra. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court provided, he is represented by a counsel before the trial court on every date of hearing and he shall be present before the trial court as and when his presence is required by the trial court.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA October 27, 2025 KTL