Telangana High Court
Paritala Naresh vs The State Of Telangana on 5 July, 2019
Author: G. Sri Devi
Bench: G. Sri Devi
HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3518 of 2019
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.124 of 2019 of Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(Va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 2015.
The case of the prosecution is that, on 09.03.2019 at about 13.00 hours, the defacto complainant had lodged a complaint stating that A.1 made her to believe that he will help her to borrow Rs.10.00 Lakhs and took blank cheques, Xerox of house promissory note, and he bluffs them and dodged the matter for 15 days, then they got a message about the cheque bounce, that she went to A.1's cloths shop near Radhika Theatre, for which A.1 replied that he will resolve the issue before elders, that on 07.03.2019 at about 9.30 hours, she along with her husband, brother, and her husband's friends went to the residence of A.1 at Dammaiguda and when she raised the issue and called A.1 a cheater, then A.1 abused her by using filthy language in the name of her caste by saying 'Nannu Mosagadu anta ve Madiga Munda', and the father of the accused, who is A.2, abused saying 'Madiga Lanjakodukulanu intlo nilabeti matladutunavara elagottu' GSD, J Crl.P.No.3518 of 2019 2 and his mother, who is A.3, said 'Na intiki Vachi Na kodukunu nilatistunave Madiga dana' and hence requested to take necessary action, that basing on the said complaint, Crime No.124 of 2019 of Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, was registered against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State. Perused the material on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are all false, baseless and frivolous. It is contended that according to the complainant, the alleged incident had taken place in the house of the petitioners between four walls and not in a public place and that the sections of law mentioned in the complaint do not attract to the petitioners and they have no nexus with the alleged incident. It is further contended that, according to the complainant, the alleged crime occurred on 07.03.2019 at the house of the petitioners, whereas the complaint has been lodged by the complainant on 09.03.2019 i.e., two days after occurrence of the alleged incident and there is no explanation for the said delay in lodging the FIR, which clearly goes to show that the complainant cooked up a false and concocted story against the petitioners to settle her scores. It is also contended that there are no financial transactions between the complainant and the petitioners GSD, J Crl.P.No.3518 of 2019 3 and they are not aware of any cheques and promissory notes as alleged in the complaint and hence the question of dishonour of cheques does not arise. It is also contended that the sister-in-law of the complainant had taken some amount from A.1 and for which she had given a cheque and the same was dishonoured, upon which A.1 sent a legal notice to her sister-in-law, that though no reply was received for the said legal notice, as a counter blast to the said legal notice, in order to avoid payment of money and to save her sister-in- law, the complainant has chosen to falsely implicate the petitioners by foisting a false case against them. It is also contended that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court, including assisting the investigating agency for their release on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in the above crime.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the relief sought in the above petition contending that the petitioners have abused the complainant in filthy language in the name of her caste and hence they are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
As seen from the record, the alleged incident had taken place within the four walls of the house of the petitioners and not in a public place. However, the complaint lodged by the complainant shows that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners stating that they have abused the complainant in the name of her caste.
GSD, J Crl.P.No.3518 of 2019 4 Thus, in view of the specific and serious nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 and taking into consideration the gravity of offences, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A.1 to A.3. However, if the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 surrender before the Court below concerned and move an application for regular bail, after giving prior notice to the Public Prosecutor concerned, the same shall be considered in accordance with law on the same day itself.
With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 05.07.2019.
Msr GSD, J Crl.P.No.3518 of 2019 5 HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.3518 of 2019 05.07.2019 Msr