IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH CRIMINAL PETITION No.13452 of 2010 Between:
Vuppalapati Ravi Raju .. Petitioner and The State of A.P Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P Hyderabad, and another .. Respondents DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 04.08.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No see the fair copy of the Judgment?
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.13452 of 2010
ORDER:
This is a Criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.1420 of 2010 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderbad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 323 IPC corresponding to Crime No.203 of 2010 on the file of Osmania University Police Station, Hyderabad.
2. The petitioner is A1 and the second respondent is the de facto complainant. The allegation is that on 29.06.2010 at about 9.40 AM while the second respondent was walking a side of the road at Tarnaka Bus Stop, two known persons viz., A1 and A2 came on scooter bearing registration No.AP13A 2789 from backside and beat him with hands due to previous enmity and also caused an accident with their scooter. It is further mentioned in the complaint that the passers go by called 108 Ambulance, but it did not come in time, then he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital in auto. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that in the complaint, the de facto complainant mentioned that he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital in auto, but as per the charge sheet it is mentioned that he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital through 108 Ambulance, therefore, absolutely a false case is registered against the petitioner and as a matter of fact the petitioner/accused was not even present near the scene of offence.
4. The contentions that are advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant at the stage of entertaining the petition for quashing the proceedings in criminal case. What all required to be seen is whether the perusal of the contents of the complaint or the charge sheet reveals what is exactly done. Merely because there is some inconsistency in the complaint and the charge sheet, the petitioner cannot be heard saying that he is entitled to discharge and all further proceedings are liable to be quashed. A perusal of the complaint and the charge sheet clearly shows that on the date of incident when the de facto complainant was on road, it is the petitioners/A1 and A2, who came from behind and beat with hands and also caused the accident due to some previous enmity. Whether the allegations are true or not will be determined only during the course of trial. In the circumstances of the case, I see no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
M.S.K. JAISWAL, J Date: 04.08.2015
MVA
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.13452 of 2010 Date: 04.08.2015 MVA