CRLP/15548/2013 of S.Naveen Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2013

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused 1 to 3under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of investigation in CrimeNo.568 of 2013 of Chilkalguda Police Station, Hyderabad, registeredfor the offences punishable under Sections 506, 509 and 323 IPC.

2. The averments in the report would disclose that on 11.09.2013at about 7.00 a.m., A-1 who is the husband of the 2[nd] respondentherein beat and caused severe injuries. He is alleged to have madean attempt to throw the son of the 2[nd] respondent from building. It isfurther alleged that the accused is forcing 2[nd] respondent to withdrawthe 498-A IPC case which was filed against him in the court of JudicialMagistrate of First Class, Suryapet. The averments in the report alsodisclose that A-2 and A-3 were assisting A-1 in doing the alleged acts.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submits thatthough the incident is said to have taken place on 11.09.2013, thepresent report is filed on 04.10.2013. In the absence of anyexplanation with regard to the delay in lodging the complaint, hesubmits that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners wouldbe an abuse of process of law. He further contended that the addressshown in the report is that of the daughter of A-3 and only with a viewto grab the property, the said report is given by showing the address ofthe daughter of A-3.

4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutoropposed the application contending that as the allegations in thereport do make out a case, the inherent power under Section 482CrPC cannot be invoked to interdict the investigation.

5. A reading of the First Information Report would clearly disclose that on 11.09.2013 A-1 is alleged to have beat the informantapart from causing bleeding injuries by biting her. The report alsodiscloses that the accused made an attempt to throw the son of the 2[nd]respondent from the building and when resisted A-1 laid her down andtried to throttle the informant by pressing her neck with his legs. Thereport also discloses that A-2 and A-3 used to instigate A-1 whichmade the 1[st] accused to indulge in the above acts. The contention ofthe learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no explanation forthe delay in lodging report, cannot be accepted. The delay of 22 daysin lodging the report by itself cannot be a ground to quash theproceedings. It is a matter, which requires to be adjudicated during thecourse of trial.

6. Further, the Apex Court in catena of decisions has held thatFIR is not an encyclopedia which should contain all the details. Suffice it is if the basic facts are mentioned in the report. Since theallegations in the report prima facie constitute offence punishableunder Sections 506, 509 and 323 IPC, I am of the view that inherentpower under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to interdict theinvestigation which is at the threshold.

7. Accordingly, the criminal petition to quash the investigation inCrime No.568 of 2013 of Chilkalguda Police Station, Hyderabad, ishereby dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail theremedies available under law, in case the police filed the charge-sheet.

As a sequel to it, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in thiscriminal petition, shall stand dismissed.

_____________________

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J