P KUMAR Vs. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in S. C. No. 252 of 2001 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. One Smt. J. Vinodhini gave a report to the police alleging that the petitioner had on 08. 07. 2000 at about 8. 30 p. m. , accompanied by four unknown persons, criminally trespassed into her house when she was alone and abused her in filthy language and caught hold of her hand and dragged her towards him with an intention to outrage her modesty and on hearing her cries the devotees in the Church came to her rescue and on their arrival petitioner and others left her house. The said complaint was registered as Cr. No. 218 of 2000 under Secs. 354, 448 and 506 I. P. C. by Chilkalaguda police station. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner under Secs. 448, 354 and 506 I. P. C. The learned Magistrate, having taken the same on file, after appearance of the petitioner, committed him to take trial before a Court of Sessions.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the learned Magistrate was in error in taking cognizance of the case without applying his mind and committing the case to Sessions without going through the record. It is his contention that there are several discrepancies in the charge sheet, remand report and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Sec. 161 Cr. P. C. , and so the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the case mechanically and should not have committed the case to a Court of Sessions. It is his contention that a reading of F. I. R. itself shows that there are differences between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant, and since there is a great delay in giving report to the police, it is clear that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the case and so if not the entire charge sheet Sec. 354 I. P. C. mentioned in the charge sheet has to be quashed. The contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that the statements of witnesses recorded under Sec. 161 Cr. P. C. and the averments in the F. I. R. clearly show that an offence under Sec. 354 I. P. C. was committed and so there are no grounds to quash Sec. 354 I. P. C. from the charge sheet or the F. I. R.

(3.) Since this is a proceeding under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. , it is well known that the averments in the F. I. R. and the charge sheet, prima facie, have to be taken, to be true and this Court has to examine whether the averments in the F. I. R. and charge sheet prima facie disclose offence[s] under any provision of Law or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing strong reliance on MEDWIN HOSPITAL Vs. STATE OF A. P. , contended that since the Magistrate erred in mechanically taking cognizance of the case and committing the case to Sessions, it is liable to be quashed.