THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.430 of 2025

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in CC No.1550 of 2024 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B. Nagar, for the offence under Section 324 IPC.

2. Heard Mr.Singireddi Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is facing false allegations that he has committed an offence under Section 324 IPC. His contention is that to attract the offence under Section 324 IPC, a weapon should be used in the commission of offence and the petitioner must have caused grievous injuries on the victim and that in the present case, the injury certificate does not disclose any grievous injury and further no weapon is seized. Hence, a false case is registered against the petitioner herein. He further submitted that the de facto complainant and the petitioner are wife and husband and that present case is filed with an ulterior motive and malafide intention, and prayed to quash the proceedings.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that the FIR was registered under Section 323 IPC, but after obtaining MLC and during the course of investigation, it was elicited that the petitioner has beat the de facto complainant and hit her head against wall, which attracts the offence under Section 324 IPC and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The record discloses that based on the contents of the complaint, FIR was registered for the offence under Section 323 IPC. The recitals of the charge sheet point out causing of simple injuries, but, however, the charge sheet is filed under Section 324 IPC. The MLC which form a part of record also discloses only simple injuries. Thus, a wrong provision of law is quoted in the charge sheet. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 324 IPC does not get attracted which is falsely filed against him and that the charge sheet itself is false and thus, the proceedings should be quashed. But, the allegations have to be looked into and once the allegations reveal a prima facie case against the petitioners, the case is registered and investigated. Even if the charge sheet is filed by quoting a wrong provision of law, the trial court can examine and adjudicate as per the evidence adduced before it. The contents of the complaint point out that the petitioner has banged the head of the de facto complainant against the wall. Thus, the prima facie incident of beating the de facto complainant is disclosed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anwarul Haq v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2005 SCC 2382, wherein it was held that:

“Section 324 provides that "Whoever except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal" can be convicted in terms of Section 324. The expression "an instrument, which used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death" should be construed with reference to the nature of the instrument and not the manner of its use. What has to be established by the prosecution is that the accused voluntarily caused hurt and that such hurt

was caused by means of an instrument referred to in this Section.”

8. In the said case, the trial was concluded and the trial court has convicted the accused and on evalua