THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15708 of 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and 5 to 7 in C.C.No.1702 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.07.2024 respondent No.2/ de facto complainant lodged a report before the Police stating that he got married to Smt. Chaithanya Kumari about three years ago as per their caste customs. However, marital disputes arose between them for the past two and a half years, and his wife has already filed a case under Section 498-A IPC at Mancherial Police Station, which is currently under trial. On 15.06.2024 at around 14:30 hours, while his relatives were at Prajna Hospital, Suryapet, he, along with his parents Chandramma and Bhadraiah, went there. At that time, his wife Chaithanya Kumari, his mother- in-law Achamma, and his brothers-in-law Venkatesh, Madhukar, Venkanna, Shiva, and others namely Vijjamma, Veeraiah, and Nagamma, all residents of Mancherial, came there, picked up a quarrel with them, and assaulted his mother and father by beating them with hands and kicking them. They also abused them in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences, causing fear for their lives.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.345 of 2024 of Suryapet II Town Police Station, Suryapet District, for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.1702 of 2024, before the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against them.

4. Heard Sri B. Sairam Goud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incident allegedly took place on 14.07.2024, but the complaint was lodged and the FIR was registered only on 20.07.2024, resulting in an unexplained delay of six days, which raises doubts about the truth of the complaint and that no medical evidence has been filed to support the allegations under Section 323 IPC. He further submitted that the complainant is the husband of petitioner No.1, and she has already filed a criminal case against him under Section 498-A IPC, which is under trial and that another case was also filed by petitioner No.1 against the complainant under Sections 448, 294-B, and 506 IPC in Crime No.294 of 2022, for which a charge sheet has been filed. In addition, a domestic violence case in DVC No. 36 of 2024 has also been filed by her.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present complaint is false and has been filed by the complainant in collusion with the police, to harass the petitioners in retaliation and that the police filed the charge sheet without proper investigation and without verifying facts. He further contended that petitioner No.7 (shown as Accused No.9 in the charge sheet) is a juvenile, aged only 16 years as per his SSC certificate (DOB: 25.11.2007), but has been wrongly shown as 18 years. He further contended that the witnesses LWs1 to 5 are close relatives of the complainant and their statements are biased and that the offences mentioned in the charge sheet under Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC are not made out. The police also removed the names of accused Nos. 3 and 4 from the case without giving any reason. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing this criminal