Nimmanapalle Sharmila Parveen v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4624 of 2017 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/ accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No.58 of 2017 on the file of the Station House Officer, Chinnachowk Police Station, Kadapa, registered under Sections 323, 324, 354, 354(c) and 355 read with 34 IPC. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to civil dispute, the second respondent falsely implicated the petitioners. He further submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint ex facie taken to be true and correct, no offence is made out against the petitioners. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie constitute the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners.

3.

A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners herein are A3 and A4 and the second respondent is the de facto complainant. As per the allegations made in the complaint, on 31.03.2017 the petitioners herein along with others beat the second respondent and her family members. It is further alleged that the petitioners herein made an attempt to outrage the modesty of the sister of the second respondent. 4.

While exercising the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration the allegations

made in the complaint only. The Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint at the initial stage of investigation. Whether the petitioners have committed the alleged offence or not will come to light during the course of investigation. The material placed before the Court is prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. 5.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in R.P.Kapoor v. State of Punjab1, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2, V.Y.Jose v. State of Gurajat 3 and Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan4, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold.

6.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar5, the Station House Officer, Chinnachowk Police Station, is hereby directed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. in Crime No.58 of 2017 so far as the petitioners/ accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned.

1 AIR 1960 SC 866 2 AIR 1992 SC 604 3 (2009) 3 SCC 78 4 2015 (1) ACR 564 (SC) 5 2014 (8) SCALE 250

7.

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

_____________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date:20.06.2017 Rns