THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Criminal Petition No.15114 of 2024

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) seeking quashment of proceedings in Sessions Case No.119 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Khammam.

2. I have heard Mr.Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

3. Briefly stated, the prosecution’s case is that on 06.02.2024, at approximately 5:00 p.m., the petitioners, arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 and 2, were involved in a physical altercation with the father of Respondent No. 2, who is also the deceased in the present matter. During the course of the incident, the petitioners allegedly attempted to forcibly administer insecticide to the deceased. Although the deceased resisted their attempt, a quantity of the insecticide is stated to have splashed into his eyes during the scuffle. Subsequently, on 27.03.2024, the deceased passed away. Initially, based on the events, a criminal case was registered on 22.03.2024 under Sections 294(b), 324, and 447 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following the death of the deceased, the charges were first amended to include Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, and were ultimately enhanced to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are false and fabricated. It is contended that the investigation has not yielded any material evidence to justify the prosecution of the petitioners under Sections 299 or 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with culpable homicide and murder, respectively. As such, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the case records do not reveal any motive, intention, or prior enmity on the part of the petitioners toward the deceased. Significantly, even as per the prosecution’s version, the alleged assault occurred on 06.02.2024, whereas the deceased was first hospitalized only on 14.03.2024, and ultimately passed away on 27.03.2024. The considerable lapse of time between the incident and the eventual death negates the existence of a proximate causal link between the two. Moreover, the first information report (F.I.R.) was lodged on 22.03.2024, more than a month after the alleged incident thereby raising serious doubts about the bona fides of the complaint and suggesting an ulterior motive. Most importantly, it is submitted that the medical evidence gathered during the course of investigation does not establish that the cause of death was poisoning. Therefore the facts and circumstances indicate that the deceased died of natural causes, and that a false case has been instituted against the petitioners solely to harass them. As such, continuation of criminal proceedings in the absence of a prima facie case would result in grave injustice and constitute an abuse of the process of law.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) 19 SCC 401; (ii) Ashok v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 4 SCC 393; and (iii) Ramaiah v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 9 SCC 365.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposing the petition, contends that the evidence on record prima facie indicates that the death of the deceased was causally linked to the incident described in the F.I.R. It is further argued that it is well settled in law that the credibility or veracity of the evidence collected during investigation cannot be adjudicated in a petition seeking quashment under Section 482 of the CrPC or 528 of the BNSS. The petitioners will have full opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and challenge the evidence during trial. Hen