The Courtroom held that the existence of a parallel civil dispute doesn’t, by itself, bar felony prosecution.
The place the allegations within the grievance independently disclose the important components of cognizable felony offences, the existence of a parallel civil dispute can’t function as a authorized bar to felony prosecution,” the Courtroom noticed.
The Courtroom discovered that key questions within the case, together with whether or not the accused had unlawfully dispossessed the complainant regardless of an present injunction, and whether or not their alleged admissions in civil proceedings amounted to proof of illegal conduct, had been disputed questions of reality that might solely be resolved by means of trial, not in a petition looking for the pre-trial quashing of proceedings.
The Courtroom additionally rejected the argument that the Justice of the Peace had mechanically taken cognisance of the case with out making use of judicial thoughts. The Excessive Courtroom held that the Justice of the Peace had, in actual fact, thought of the grievance, sworn statements, and supporting materials earlier than issuing summons.
The Courtroom proceeded to dismiss the petition filed by Daggubati and others accused. The Courtroom, nonetheless, clarified that the accused stay free to boost all factual and authorized defences earlier than the trial courtroom.
