THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.632 of 2022

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.926 of 2022 on the file of the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mahabubnagar (previously C.C.No.421 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise) at Mahabubnagar), registered for the offences under Sections 353 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard Mr. M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Inspite of service of notice, none appears for respondent No.2-de facto complainant. Perused the record.

3. The de facto complainant is working as Forest Section Officer at Mayuri Nursery, Appannapally. The gist of the complaint is that on 27.09.2017, the accused visited the park to play cricket. On observing the same, LW-2/I.Krishnaiah instructed them to stop playing the game in public place. But the accused paid deaf ear and continued to play the game. Meantime, the ball was hit to the back of LW-2 and other visitors.

When the visitors complained to the de facto complainant, she, along with her staff, went there and instructed the accused to stop the game, but they denied and obstructed to discharge her duties. When LW-2 intervened, accused No.1 beat him with stone causing bleeding injury to the head. Accused No.2 and petitioner-accused No.3 beat LW-2 with hands and kicked him with legs with a common intention.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner and his family members went to Mayuri Nursery for vacation. When the petitioner and his family members were playing cricket, a group of people obstructed the petitioner and assaulted him, as such, his family members lodged a complaint. As a counterblast to the said complaint, the present complaint was lodged against the accused. In fact, the petitioner never assaulted or misbehaved with LW-2. It is also contended that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner and the ingredients of the offences alleged against him are not made out.

Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. All the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. For proper adjudication of the matter, it is apposite to extract Sections 353 and 324 of IPC, which are as under: “353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. “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 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 it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to