public view - presence of public= It is true from reading of F.I.R. and from the statement of LW.1, who set the law in motion, LW.2 victim and there is nothing about presence of LW.3 their daughter aged about 7 years, leave about any persons or gathering of LWs.4 to 9 of the charge sheet to say they are the so called eye witnesses.= there is no case triable by the Court of Sessions for the offence under Section 3(i) or (ii) of the Act not attracted for no occurrence in the public view and there is no forcible administering of any abnomis substance or any other material to it much less to assault or of any dumpting excrete, waste matter or cascade etc., Hence, P.R.C. number allotted by the learned Magistrate is held unsustainable, with a direction to close the said P.R.C. and take case on file afresh as C.C. to try for other offences as Section 3(1)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has no application.

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO          

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6425  OF 2015    

21-07-2015

T.V.S.Kuppuswamy.Petitioner  

The State of Telangana, rep., by Public Prosecutor and another   Respondents  

Counsel for the petitioners: Ms.Kranthi K.Vaka

Counsel  for the Respondents:  Learned Public Prosecutor for Telangana

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:


HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO          
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6425 OF 2015    

ORDER:
       
      This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A1 under
Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in
P.R.C.No.25 of 2015 on the file of XVII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad.
      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor (Telangana) for the State before notice
to respondent No.2 and before admission. Perused the material
on record.
        The petitioner is A1 among two accused of crime No.628 of
2014 of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354(D), 506, 323 r/w
34 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short
the Act). It is after investigation, the police filed charge sheet
so far as the petitioner/A1 is concerned except for the offence
under Section 3(i)(ii) of the Act, the other offences mentioned in
the F.I.R. So far as A2 is concerned including Section 3(i)(ii) of
the Act. Undisputedly, A1 belongs to Scheduled caste, as can be
seen from the charge sheet. In fact, A1 and A2 moved for
anticipatory bail and this Court while holding Crl.P.Nos.8411 and
8422 of 2014 dated 28.07.2014 held that the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has no
application so far as A1 is concerned and anticipatory bail is
maintainable and however by finding not a case granting
anticipatory bail given liberty to surrender and move for regular
bail.  Even from the very report of the de facto complainant,
though there is whisper in saying the accused along with his wife
brought liquor bottles and biryani in the car into his house and
they started drinking and forced him to consume, there is
nothing to say that they forcibly administered. What he says was,
while he was consuming appears voluntarily, there is alleged
outrage of modesty of his wife.  Even there from Section 3(i) or
(ii) has no application to the facts.  Once that is the case, the
alleged occurrence dated 29.06.2014 leave about any
explanation for the delay in reporting the occurrence
undisputedly on 05.07.2014. The offence punishable under
Sections 354, 354-D and 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. so far as accused
concerned are triable by the Magistrate. Thus, there are no
grounds to commit the case to the Court of Sessions covered by
P.R.C.No.25 of 2015 on the file of XVII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad.
      Now, it is one of the contentions further by the learned
counsel for the petitioner/A1 that in addition to what is referred
supra of no case to be tried by the Court of Sessions to commit
by the learned Magistrate, in impugning the PRC proceedings
pending before Magistrate, that there is delay in reporting the
occurrence.
      It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that
F.I.R. itself contains an explanation.  It is premature for this
Court at this stage as to the delay and the alleged explanation
sustainable or not but for to decide by the trial Court.  Now, as
pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner there are
improvements in the statements of the so called witnesses LWs 3
to 7.  It is true from reading of F.I.R. and from the statement of
LW.1, who set the law in motion, LW.2 victim and there is
nothing about presence of LW.3 their daughter aged about 7
years, leave about any persons or gathering of LWs.4 to 9 of the
charge sheet to say they are the so called eye witnesses. It is for
the reason in the very explanation for the so called delay, what
the de facto complainant in the report as well as in his statement
so also by the victim and LW.2 in her statement, stated is the
accused allegedly threatened them not to disclose to anybody
and not even their case of any hue and cry and therefrom
gathering of neighbours. It is having  they left the village and
after one week allegedly came back and there from reported the
police.  So far as these improvements concerned, it is also a
matter to be elicited in trial, as it is premature for this Court to
say F.I.R. coupled with the statements of LWs.1 and 2 is not
suffice to sustain other accusations.
      Having regard to the above, the petition before admission
from the hearing of the petitioner/A1 and the 1st
respondent/State represented by Public Prosecutor and before
notice to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, disposed of
holding that there is no case triable by the Court of Sessions for
the offence under Section 3(i) or (ii) of the Act not attracted for
no occurrence in the public view and there is no forcible
administering of any abnomis substance or any other material to
it much less to assault or of any dumpting excrete, waste matter
or cascade etc., Hence, P.R.C. number allotted by the learned
Magistrate is held unsustainable, with a direction to close the
said P.R.C. and take case on file afresh as C.C. to try for other
offences as Section 3(1)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has no
application.
      Accordingly, this criminal petition is disposed of.
        Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________  
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J  
Date: 21-07-2015

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.