HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.714 of 2014 Date: 23-7-2014 Between Racharla Laxmikantha Rao and another … Petitioners/ Accused 1 and 2 and The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent Racharla Srinivasa Rao … Respondent/
De facto Complainant
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.714 of 2014 Order:
The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.557 of 2013 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal. They seek for the quashment of the case.
2. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. The offences levelled against the petitioners are under Sections 448, 323 and 506 IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 2nd respondent initially filed a private complaint under Sections 406, 420, 448, 324 and 506 IPC.
The case was referred by the Court to Police and Police issued First Information Report (FIR). Admittedly, Police later filed a final report stating that the dispute was a civil natured dispute, so much so, Police do not have any jurisdiction.
4. On such a referred charge-sheet, the 2nd respondent filed a protest petition. The Trial Court took cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 448, 323 and 506 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this is a case of total misuse of the process of Court and that false complaint was lodged against the petitioners. He further submitted that the dispute is civil in nature. When the 2nd respondent initially approached the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) for redressal, the authority advised him to go to the Civil Court for redressal.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the very fact that the DLSA directed the 2nd respondent to approach Civil Court shows that the dispute is a civil dispute. I do not agree with this contention. The view of the DLSA cannot bind the parties. Further, the view taken by the DLSA need not be comprehensive as the aim of the authority is to settle the disputes.
5. It would appear that the 2nd respondent wanted partition of the joint family properties between himself and petitioners 1 and 2, who are no other than his natural brothers. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the petitioners did not allow the 2nd respondent to raise the dispute, the 2nd respondent went back and that allegedly the petitioners later went to the house of the 2nd respondent and beat him. He submitted that the complaint was false and that there was no occasion for the petitioners to go to the house of the 2nd respondent to beat him.
6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the 2nd respondent went to the house of the 1st accused along with two other elders to request the petitioners to settle the dispute and that the petitioners not only necked out the 2nd respondent from the house, they administered threats and also tried to throttle the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were elsewhere at the time of the alleged incident. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners tried to set up the defence of alibi.
7. I consider that where the 2nd respondent contended that the petitioners manhandled and assaulted him, it would be appropriate for the parties to proceed with the trial of the case as the dispute is a question of fact which can be decided at the time of the trial only. The question whether the dispute is a civil dispute or a criminal litigation also cannot be decided in a petition of this nature. I consider that it would be appropriate for the petitioners to face trial and put up their defence. So far as the present petition is concerned, I see no merits in this petition.
8. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed. The 1st petitioner is 60 years old. I therefore consider that the Trial Court shall dispense with the presence of the 1st petitioner/accused No.1 during the pendency of the trial. The Trial Court, however, is at liberty to call the 1st petitioner also to appear before the Court on any date of hearing for any purpose in connection with the case. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.
23rd July, 2014. Ak HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.714 of 2014 23rd July, 2014. (Ak)