THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.11862 of 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.669 of 2017 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as sole accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Sri VSRMV Prasad Sanakap, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri P.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri P.Achutham Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10.02.2017 the defacto complainant lodged a complaint stating that he and the office bearers of the Ratna Complex Welfare Association attempted to issue letters to residents for payment of monthly maintenance. It is alleged that the petitioner, along with four others, obstructed them, pushed them, snatched and tore the papers, and abused the office bearers in unparliamentary language. When they attempted to paste the notices on the wall, the petitioner allegedly shouted at them and manhandled them along with his associates. Hence, the complainant requested necessary action against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made either in the complaint or in the charge sheet, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 323 and 341 of the IPC are not attracted. The only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that when the residents and flat owners approached him to serve a notice regarding the non-payment of maintenance dues by the petitioner and his father in respect of their flats, an altercation took place.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are purely civil in nature as it is pertaining to the recovery of maintenance charges due and payable by the petitioner and his father. It is further stated that the petitioner’s father, who constructed the apartments as a builder, alienated all the flats allotted to his share after registration of the said crime. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a practicing advocate and has not committed any offence, and that continuation of the proceedings against him amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner did not allow the defacto complainant to serve the notices and used unparliamentary words against them, and that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner attracting the ingredients of the offences under Sections 323 and 341 of the IPC. Whether the petitioner has committed the offences or not has to be determined after a full-fledged trial, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that it is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner constructed the Ratna Complex Apartments. When the flat owners visited the premises of the petitioner to serve notice regarding non-payment of maintenance charges, the petitioner obstructed them and refused to receive the notices. The allegations in the complaint and the charge sheet pertain to the non-payment of the amount due and payable by the father of the petitioner to the Ratna Complex Welfare Association. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner specifically stated that the petitioner’s father had alienated the flats that were allotted towards his sh