AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 402 wordsR.R. Prasad
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State and also learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of C.P case No. 1603 of 2007 including the order dated 7.2.2008 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 148. 323. 379, 427, 448, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners.
The aforesaid order taking cognizance is being sought to be quashed on the ground that there has been land dispute in between the parties, who though are related to each other but they, on account of the land dispute, are in litigating term. It was pointed out that the complainant had earlier lodged a case in which when cognizance was taken that order was challenged in this Court, in Cr.M.P. No. 963 of 2002. This Court quashed the order taking cognizance, vide order dated 11.4.2007. That apart, the petitioners had also lodged a case against some of the relatives of the complainant which ended in conviction of that persons and now this case has been filed wherein all false allegations have been levelled against the entire family members and therefore, the prosecution being mala fide is fit to be quashed.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 submits that this case has nothing to do with the case earlier lodged by the complainant or by the petitioners, rather the case was lodged when the petitioners committed offence under which cognizance has been taken against them.
In this respect, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 submits that when daughter of the petitioner No. 1 fell ill, it was suspected by the accused person that it was on account of witchcraft being played by the complainant she has become ill and therefore, they assaulted the complainant and other family members and as such, order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed.
Even if there has been land dispute in between the parties and that earlier also a case had been lodged but that cannot be a ground for quashing of order taking cognizance when the allegations made do constitute offences under which cognizance has been taken. In this situation, the order taking cognizance never warrants tobe quashed. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.