HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Criminal Petition No.4004 of 2014
Date: 01.08.2014 Between:
Kommdi Sanjeeva Reddy, and 5 others. .. Petitioner/ A.1 to A.6 AND Sri Chidurupuru Chandra Reddy, and another. .. Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Criminal Petition No.4004 of 2014
ORDER:
The case in C.C.No.76 of 2014 on the file of IV Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad is sought to be quashed by A.1 to A.6 therein. On a complaint lodged by the first respondent on behalf of his niece Smt.
A. Manjula, First Information Report in Crime No.194 of 2013 was issued by Osmania University Sity Police, East Zone, Hyderabad. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioners herein alleging that the petitioners committed offences under Section 468, 471, 448, 427, 323 and 506 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that Smt.
A. Manjula, a resident of United States of America owns Plot No.51 in Survey Nos. 30 and 31P, Street No.8, Maheshwarinagar, Habsiguda, Hyderabad. Smt. A. Manjula allegedly purchased the same about 20 years ago. The petitioners hatched a conspiracy to grab the land and in furtherance of their conspiracy, constructed a temporary shed together with a compound wall in Plot No.51 illegally. The property belonged to Smt. A. Manjula. Neither Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation nor Smt. A. Manjula granted permission to the petitioners to make such constructions. When the first respondent along with another accosted the petitioners for their illegal constructions, the first respondent was beaten and was threatened with dire consequences. Hence, this case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint is false. He further contended that taking advantage of the criminal record against the first petitioner, a make believe story is woven around the petitioners by the first respondent.
He seeks for the quashment of C.C.No.76 of 2014.
4. Be it noted that A.1 was involved in as many as 10 criminal cases in Bhongir Police Station, 8 criminal cases in Bibinagar Police Station and 1 criminal case in Ghatkesar Police Station. A rowdy sheet was opened against A.1. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that A.1 was acquitted in all the cases and that in fact A.1 filed a writ petition before this Court seeking to discontinue the rowdy sheet against him.
At any rate, the rowdy sheet has not been discontinued so far.
5. I wholly agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that merely because there is a rowdy sheet against the petitioner/A.1, it cannot be concluded that the allegations in the charge sheet are prima facie true. It is, however, for the petitioners to show that the allegations against the petitioners are prima facie false or patently improbable and that it is a fit case for quashment.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners tried to read from Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses that a prima facie case is not made out against the petitioners. After due investigation and after recording the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., police noticed that the prima facie case was made out against the petitioner. It is not appropriate to go into the niceties of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements and to assess and weigh 161 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses to determine whether the case is prima facie false or otherwise is improbable. I consider that the material on re c o rd prima facie established a case against the petitioners, as can be seen from the contents of the charge sheet itself.
7. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners to face trial. If the petitioners consider that the imputations against them are false, they may establish the same during the course of trial and seek for an acquittal. I, therefore, see no merits in this petition for quashment of C.C.No.76 of 2014. This petition deserves to be dismissed. However, where the petitioners are said to be employees and where two of the petitioners are even senior citizens, I deem it appropriate to direct that the trial Court shall not insist upon the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court for the hearings of the case.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the trial court to proceed with the trial of C.C.No.76 of 2014. The trial Court shall not insist upon the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court for the hearings of the case. However, the trial Court is at liberty to insist upon the personal appearance of any of the petitioners or all the petitioners before the trial Court for any adjournment if the trial Court considers it necessary for the petitioners to be present before the Court in person for the just disposal of the case.
9. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this Criminal Petitions, shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G. Shankar, J.
Date: 01.08.2014 Isn