THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4730 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the docket order dated 28.06.2014 passed in C.C.No.823 of 2012 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal and to direct the trial Court to frame charges in C.C.No.823 of 2012 by reopening the trial proceedings.

2. Heard Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, party-in-person, Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri V.S.R.M.V. Prasad Sanaka, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

3. The contention of the party-in-person-petitioner is that the trial Court examined the accused under Section 251 of Cr.P.C, and convicted for the offence under Sections 448, 427 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- in default to suffer S.I. for one month. Challenging the said order the present petition is filed stating that in Lok Adalat they cannot take the admissions and it is only for the compoundable offences. The complainant was not present at the time of compounding the offence and the trial Court without going into the same examined the accused under Section 251 of Cr.P.C and convicted under Section 252 of Cr.P.C. His further contention is that offence under Section 506 of IPC is punishable with seven years. As such, it is a warrant case, accused cannot be examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. As such, prayed this Court to set aside the docket order of the trial Court.

4. On the other hand, the contention of learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent is that the petitioner herein has no locus standii, he is not the complainant in the said C.C., and he cannot challenge the same as a witness to the said case. He further contended that the petitioner herein made allegations against the judicial officer without any basis. There are no merits in this petition. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss this criminal petition with exemplary costs.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that if party is aggrieved by the order of trial court the recourse is to file appeal for the sentence imposed but he cannot challenge the same in a quash petition and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the first contention of petitioner is that in Lok Adalat both parties have to be present for compounding the offences whereas the trial Court examined the accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C., and convicted him and not passed any award compounding the offences, as such, presence of defacto complainant is not necessary. The other contention of petitioner is that the second limb of Section 506 of IPC is a non-compoundable offence which is punishable upto seven years, as such, it is a warrant case and he has to be examined under Section 235 Cr.P.C, whereas, with regard to amendment to Section 506 of IPC, there is no G.O, passed by the State Government accepting the amendment as on today in Telangana State. The punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 506 of IPC is only two years. As such, there are no merits in the contentions of petitioner. Furthermore, petitioner is not the defacto complainant and he is not a party to the proceedings, he is only a witness to the said proceedings. This petition is filed after 11 years of passing the docket order by the trial Court and no reasons are assigned by the petitioner for the said delay. As such, there are no merits in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________

K. SUJANA, J Date : 18.07.2025 Rds