THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4407 of 2011 ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 to A11 in Crime No.104 of 2011 of Miryalguda (R) Police Station, Nalgonda District for the offences under Sections 376, 109 and 201 of I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein acted as mediators to resolve the dispute between the defacto complainant and A1, therefore, these petitioners were falsely implicated in this case.
3. The learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is not the stage to quash the proceedings.
4. This Court can quash the proceedings by exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the following circumstances :-
(1) if the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence much less the offence alleged in the complaint, (2) if the registration of crime and continuation of the investigation would amount to abuse of the process of the Court, (3) even if the allegations made in the complaint ex facie taken to be true and correct, there is no possibility to convict the petitioner, (4) if the registration of the case and entrustment of the investigation to the police is prohibited by any law for the time being in force or (5) to secure the ends of the justice.
5. The second respondent is the defacto-complainant and the petitioners herein are A2 to A11 in Crime No.104 of 2011. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioners herein acted as mediators to resolve the issue between A1 and the defacto- complainant. It is also alleged that the petitioners herein have prevented the second respondent to lodge a complaint in time.
6. While deciding the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint only. This is not the stage to decide whether the petitioners herein have obstructed the second respondent to lodge a complaint in time or not. The allegations made in the complaint prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in [1] R.P.Kapoor v. State of Punjab a n d State of Haryana v.
[2] Bhajanlal , I am of the view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at the threshold.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the concerned Station House Officer may be directed not to arrest the petitioners/A2 to A11 till completion of the investigation.
9. A perusal of the record reveals that this Court granted interim stay on 14-06-2011 not to arrest the petitioners herein and the investigation may go on. The same has been in force till date. In view of the earlier orders passed by this Court, I am inclined to direct the Station House Officer, Miryalguda (R) Police Station not to arrest the petitioners/A2 to A11 in Crime No.104 of 2011 till completion of the investigation or filing of the report.
10. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J September 09, 2014 Pn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4407 of 2011 September 09, 2014.
Pn
[1] AIR 1960 SC 866
[2] AIR 1992 SC 604