IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY THE THIRTYFIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4983 OF 2012 Between:
Padmasale Ranganna & Anr. … Petitioners/A1 & A2 V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of AP Hyderabad … Respondent/complainant Counsel for Petitioners : Sri P. Ramachandran Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor The court made the following: [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4983 OF 2012 O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings in STC.No. 41 of 2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur, Kurnool district, for alleged offence under section 160 of IPC.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for petitioners submitted that alleged incident was between two groups in respect of family dispute relating to property between two groups and the ingredients of section 160 IPC are not attracted. He further submitted that no public is examined to show that public peace is disturbed, therefore, on these two grounds proceedings against petitioners are to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that to attract an offence under section 160 IPC there must be an affray in public place disturbing public peace and police after examining three witnesses filed charge sheet and the correctness of statements of witnesses has to be decided during trial.
5. I have perused the material papers filed along with this criminal petition.
6. The main contention of advocate for petitioners is that no public are examined to prove that there was disturbance of public peace. Advocate for petitioners relied on a decision of Madras High Court in PUSHPA V/s. RAVI & ORS, reported on 08/03/2007 in Indiankanoon.org/doc/1167875, wherein it is held that three essential ingredients are required to attract offence under section 160 IPC firstly, fighting must be between two or more persons; secondly, fight must be in a public place and thirdly, such fight must result in disturbance of public peace. In that case, “B” party admitted at the time of arguments that fight is only a private fight and it has not resulted in disturbance to public peace. But here, Investigating Officer after examining three witnesses found that there is prima facie material attracting offence under section 160 IPC.
7. Now the contention of Advocate for Petitioners is that all three witnesses are Police Constables and no public are examined, therefore, ingredients of section 160 IPC are not attracted. That objection of petitioner is not tenable because the correctness of statements of witnesses i.e., LWs 1 to 3 is a matter of appreciation, which can be done only during trial by the trial court. From the facts, it is clear that there is fight between two parties on 08/06/2010 at about 21:00 hours and it is in a public place and whether they disturbed public peace or not is a matter of appreciation of evidence of LWs 1 to 3.
8. For the above reasons, I am of the view that there are no merits in this criminal petition. However, since STC is of the year 2011, trial court is directed to expedite trial and dispose of it as early as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The trial court shall consider the objections of petitioners, without being influenced by the observations made in this order.
9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition, if any pending, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
31/07/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4983 OF 2012 Circulation No.63 Date: 31/07/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43