HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.13142 OF 2024

JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them registered for the offences under Sections 448 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2. The 2nd respondent lodged a private complaint on 22.01.2021 before the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, which was referred to the Police Station, Madannapet, for the purpose of investigation and report. Prior to this, a complaint was filed by the 2^nd respondent on 01.11.2020 addressed to the Inspector of Police, Madannapet, which reads as follows:

“Inspector of Police, Madannapet P.S, Hyderabad.

Sir, I, B.Lalita @ Rajamani wife of late Shankariah, age: 50 years, Occ: Petti Kirana Business, Resident of House Number: 17-2-203, Chowny, Madannapet, do hereby inform as follows:

On 1-11-2020 at 2.00 p.m my younger sisters Sabita, Sunita their husbands Satyanarayana Ramalingam another younger sister’s husband Raghunandan my younger brother Sridhar his wife Ramadevi another younger brother Srinivas his wife Santoshi came to my house and took away the house documents. The house stands in the name of Shakuntala (my father’s second wife) their children

came and took away.

B.Lalita

9295 701 999)”

3. According to the 2nd respondent, since the police did not take any action on her complaint, a private complaint was filed.

4. In the private complaint, the 2nd respondent made all these petitioners as A1 to A9. According to her, she was running a petty kirana shop in house bearing No.17-2-303, Chowni, Madannapet, Hyderabad, for more than 25 years and living alone. The sale deed of the said house, bearing No.259/1989 dated 15.02.1989, stands in the name of her stepmother and the same is in her custody. Petitioners 1 and 2 are her stepbrothers and the other accused are close relatives. Since there were family disputes, all the nine accused/petitioners went to her house on 01.11.2020 at about 2.00 p.m, trespassed into the house and after preparing to assault her, wrongfully restrained her. Further, she was criminally intimidated for one hour, and she received grievous hurt at the hands of these petitioners. All the petitioners further threatened that they would end the life of the 2^nd respondent.

5. On the basis of the complaint filed, the learned Magistrate endorsed as follows:

“This is a complaint filed by complainant against A1 to A9 for the offences under Sections 441, 451, 452, 459, 382, 368, 387 506 r/w 34 of IPC, praying to refer the matter to SHO, PS, Madannapet for investigation and report under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. ….”.

6. The Police, Madannapet, having received the complaint, investigated the case and found that the offences alleged under Sections 441, 451, 452, 459, 382, 368, 387 of IPC were not made out; however, all the petitioners are liable under Sections 448 and

506 r/w 34 of IPC.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the complaint was filed with an inordinate delay of nearly 82 days. Though the complaint was registered for the offences under Sections 441, 451, 452, 459, 382, 368, 387, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, however, the police found that the petitioners had allegedly committed the offence under Sections 448 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The said delay has to be looked into, and it is apparent that, on account of the disputes between the family members, a false complaint was filed.

8. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla & others v. State of U.P and another1, wherein it was held as follows:

“13. It is also crucial to note that in the fresh complaint case instituted by him, Respondent 2 seems to have deliberately suppressed the material fact that a charge-sheet was already filed in relation to the same incident, against him and his wife, pursuant to NCR No. 160 of 2012 (Crime No. 283 of 2017) filed by Appellant 1's son. No reference to this charge-sheet is fou