THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.990 of 2025 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad, for the offence under Section 323 IPC.

2. Heard Ms. Monica P.Pole, learned counsel representing Mr.

P. Subash, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present case is filed as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the petitioner No.1 herein against the husband of the de facto complainant herein. He further submitted that based on the complaint given by the petitioner No.1, a case under Sections 354, 323, 504 and 509 IPC was registered against the husband of the de facto complainant and that as a counter blast, the present complaint is lodged by the de facto complainant based on which FIR No.276 of 2024 is registered for the offence under Section 323 IPC, and that there is no iota of truth in the allegations made in the complaint. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that two FIRs are registered based on two different incidents as there are disputes between both the families. Thus, a case and counter case have been registered against each other. He further submitted that one case cannot be quashed while the other is kept pending and thus, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. It is borne out by record that FIR No.172 of 2024 dated

08.02.2024 was registered for the offences under Sections 354, 323, 504 and 509 IPC against Gella Ravinder, husband of the de facto complainant, based on the complaint given the petitioner No.1 herein i.e. V. Laxmi Sunanda. The present case i.e. FIR No.276 of 2024 is registered on 11.03.2024 based on the complaint lodged by Gella Anitha wife of Gella Ravinder against the petitioners herein for the offence under Section 323 IPC. The allegations in the present complaint point out that both the petitioners have attacked the husband of the de facto complainant physically while he was going out from his house and that on the previous day, they had a verbal altercation with the de facto complainant and her husband and thus, while he was leaving the house in the morning, they sprayed some medicine into his eyes and manhandled him. Thus, the allegations in the complaint prima facie point out the offence under Section 323 IPC against the petitioners herein. Admittedly, there is a case and a counter case filed against each other between the two families owing to the disputes between them. As per the decision in Punit Beriwala v. The State of Nct of Delhi and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 504, in cases involving cross FIRs, one case cannot be quashed while keeping the other pending. The proceedings in the present case cannot be quashed while keeping the other case pending.

7. Hence, in the light of the said decision and in view of the above held discussion, it is not proper to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in the present case. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the matter by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court, provided they are represented by a counsel on every date of hearing before

the trial court and they shall appear before the trial court whenever their presence is required during the course of trial.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA November 18, 2025 KTL