SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 75649

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
Totkar Jatil Adithya – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Rajari Vijaya Durga and Another – Respondent
CRLP 7410/2021



THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.7410 OF 2021

ORDER:

This petition is preferred by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.6036 of 2020 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-JJB at L.B.Nagar, registered for the offences punishable under Section 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘I.P.C’.).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred as arrayed in C.C.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.11.2020 at 18:00 hours a complaint has been filed by the de facto complainant stating that the accused persons and their family was living beside her flat since 3 years. Whenever the complainant goes on the top of the building, accused were unnecessarily teasing her and tried to touch her. In the past the accused persons occupied the room, which was located in the apartment, the complainant husband discoursed about the matter with the apartment members, the same was kept in the mind by the accused persons and threatened her and her husband with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

4. Basing on the said complaint, LW.6 registered a case in Crime No.603 of 2020 under Sections 506, 509 of I.P.C. Thereafter, police filed charge sheet before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-

JJB, L.B.Nagar and the case was numbered C.C.No.6036 of 2020.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the cause in the present criminal petition does not survive as C.C.No.6036 of 2020 has been transferred to the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kushaiguda, Medchal Malkajgiri District and renumbered as C.C.No.2267 of 2020. With the consent of both the parties, the case is referred to Lok Adalath by the regular Court for compromise. The petitioner and respondent No.2 present and settled the issues between themselves. In view of the compromise, the petitioner is acquitted under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C.

7. Learned counsel further contended that subsequently the matter was transferred to the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-VIII Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Athvelli, Medchal District and renumbered as C.C.No.1799 of 2022, which is pending for adjudication. There is no regular P.O and the board is yet to be constituted, the statements do not arise as per the Juvenile Justice Board. Since the main C.C.No.2267 of 2020 has been compromised between the parties, continuation of proceedings as against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Pending legal proceedings can indeed impact the petitioner’s career. Hence seeks to allow this criminal petition.

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State would fairly contend that C.C.No.2267 of 2020 has been compromised and the petitioner has already been acquitted under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. Hence seeks to pass appropriate orders.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal held as follows;

“The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and ot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top