Telangana High Court
CRLP/2329/2007 of T.K.K.Kodandaram, Vs The Station House Officer, Marredpally,P.S., on 31 December 2009
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2329 of 2007 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the third accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing charge sheet in C.C.Sr.No.538/2004 (which is stated to have been taken cognizance as C.C.No.927/2005) on the file of X Additional Chief
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULUCRIMINAL PETITION No.2329 of 2007
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed by the third accused under Section482 Cr.P.C for quashing charge sheet in C.C.Sr.No.538/2004 (which isstated to have been taken cognizance as C.C.No.927/2005) on the fileof X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad in CrimeNo.139/2003 of Maredpalli Police Station relating to offencespunishable under Sections 448, 427, 506 I.P.C.
2) The 9[th] respondent is defacto-complainant in this case. It ison his report, Maredpalli Police registered case in Crime No.139/2003,investigated into the same and filed final report/charge sheet in thelower Court. He claims to be site supervisor of his master K.SeshagiriRao. It is alleged that on 26.06.2003 at about 11.30 P.M when he wentto his master’s residence, A-1 and A-2 forcibly trespassed into thatpremises as per directions of A-3 and A-4 and pelted stones into thepremises causing damage to window glasses and threatened him withdire consequences in case he did not vacate the house.
3) It is contended by the petitioner in person that it is a false casefoisted against him who is a senior citizen aged about 70 years andthat this is one of several similar cases in the series foisted at theinstance of K.Seshagiri Rao and that it is a case of civil nature. In thispetition under Section 482 Cr.P.C this Court cannot go into thequestion at this stage as to whether the case is a false case or a truecase. It is a disputed question of fact which has to be gone into anddecided by the trial Court after the prosecution as well as the accusedleading their respective oral and documentary evidence during trial inthe lower Court. The petitioner cannot expect this Court to find at thisstage that the case is a false one. At this stage, except the allegationthat false case was foisted against him by taking bribe by the police, there is no proof for the same. It is for the petitioner to establish thesaid fact before the lower Court during trial. Simply because this Courtquashed some of the cases filed against the petitioner in some otherproceedings, he cannot expect the same in each and every case ofhim. Unless the petitioner makes out there being no prima facie caseand unless the petitioner establishes that ingredients of the offenceswith which he was charged are not made out by the prosecution in thecharge sheet and in documents and statements appended to thecharge sheet, the question of quashing charge sheet or criminalproceedings against him will nor arise. Simply because there arecertain civil disputes pending between the parties with regard to theproperty located at scene of the offence, it would not automaticallybecome a case of civil nature. The petitioner did not file any certifiedcopies of documents relating to civil suits between him andK.Seshagiri Rao. He is at liberty to produce the same before the trialCourt at the time of trial of the case.
4) It is contended that A-1 was entrusted with carpentry work inhis house by A-3 and that A-2 is a watchman of his house. At thesame time, they cannot indulge in the alleged illegal activity oftrespassing into the property which is stated to be in possession ofK.Seshagiri Rao and cannot throw stones on that house causingdamage to window glasses and cannot threaten persons with direconsequences.
5) Unless the petitioner proved the case to be false after trialbefore the lower Court, at this stage, it cannot be said that the presentcharge sheet is in violation of his human rights as declared by theSupreme Court in Joginder Kumar V. State of U.P.[[1]]and D.K.Basu V.State of West Bengal[[2]].
6) The contention that the presiding officer of the lower Court didnot put his signature and date on the charge sheet, is of no consequence. The charge sheet is entered in S.R register or C.F.Rregister of the lower Court with a particular date and number. It issufficient compliance of the requirements of procedure.
7) I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash proceedings
Conclusion
in this case.
8) In the result, the petition is dismissed.
December 31, 2009KSH
_____________________________SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J