THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6066 of 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.1829 of 2024 on the file of the learned XI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Secunderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the de-facto complainant lodged a report on 23.06.2024, stating that he married Padmavathi in 2022, and they have one son. Since their marriage, there were ongoing personal issues between the complainant and the petitioner. The complainant’s wife frequently quarreled with him. On 23.06.2024, while the complainant was feeding their son, his wife approached him and began arguing. In the heat of the moment, she threw food in his face and slapped him. He slapped her in return. Following this, she went to her parents' house, which is located next door. Thereafter, her mother, father, and brother arrived at the complainant’s house, armed with sticks and a hockey bat, and assaulted him. During the attack, his brother-in-law, Vijay Kumar, stabbed him in the chest with a vegetable knife, causing a bleeding injury. The complainant also suffered additional injuries to his back and right hand.

3. Basing on the same, the Police registered the case in Crime No.401 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and they filed the charge sheet, vide C.C.No.1829 of 2024 before the learned XI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Secunderabad.

4. Heard Sri Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 – State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the medical certificate clearly indicates that the injuries sustained are simple in nature, and therefore, the provisions of Section 324 IPC are not attracted. Moreover, no weapon, particularly the alleged iron rod was recovered in connection with the incident. In the absence of such material evidence, the prosecution’s case lacks substantiation. It was further submitted that the charge sheet fails to establish a prima facie case against the petitioners for the alleged offences under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and further submitted that respondent No.2 has lodged a false complaint with the intention to harass the petitioners. It was alleged that the respondent suppressed material facts and misrepresented a matrimonial dispute as a criminal offence to wreak personal vengeance. Therefore, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the injury certificate placed on record categorically indicates that the injury sustained is simple in nature. Furthermore, no weapon was recovered in connection with the alleged offence. It was pointed out that the column pertaining to the nature of the wound in the certificate has been left blank and that the ingredients necessary to attract the offence under Section 324 of IPC are not satisfied. Therefore, prayed the Court to pass appropriate orders.

7. In light of the allegations made in the complaint, the applicability of Section 324 of IPC warrants consideration. Section 324 IPC deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means which reads as under:

Section 324: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means:

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 a 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 subst