Telangana High Court
Daravath Srinu vs The State Of Telangana on 4 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7329 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.249 of 2023 of Narsampet Police Station, Warangal District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 353, 290 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the de facto complainant - Bojja Ravinder, SI of Police, Narsampet Police Station, Warangal District, who is respondent No.2 herein, filed a complaint stating that on 30.07.2023 at about 17:00 hours he went near the toll gate at the outskirts of Muthojipet Village of Narsampet Mandal, along with his staff for the purpose of investigating the crime registered vide Crime No.247/2023 for offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 290, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC before the Narsampet Police Station. While they were inspecting the crime vehicle i.e., Eicher-480 tractor, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and some other persons came to them and started abusing them in filthy 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.7329 of 2023 language resulting in deterring the respondent No.2 and his staff from discharging their legitimate and lawful duties, as such, complaint was filed praying to take necessary action against the accused persons.
3. Heard Sri Veera Babu Gandu, learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners, the respondent No.2 has falsely implicated the petitioners as accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.249 of 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 353, 290 read with 34 of the IPC. He contended that the allegations raised against the petitioners are absolutely false, concocted, fabricated and malicious and crime case is filed against them in order to harass them. He submitted that the grandfather of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 owned agricultural land in survey No.98/77/B admeasuring Acs.2.20 guntas situated at Muthojipeta Village, Narsampet Mandal, Warangal District and that since several years the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are cultivating the said agricultural land without any endurance 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.7329 of 2023 from any side but thereafter, the respondent NO.2 colluded with one Vangeti Kishore Kumar and got registered a criminal case against themvide Crime No.247/2023 for offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 290, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC with an intention to grab the said agricultural land.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners asserted that the respondent NO.2 was continuously harassing the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 time and again by insisting them to come to Police Station and later when petitioner No.3 came to know that the respondent NO.2 has mercilessly beaten petitioner No.1 with rubber sticks, he sent one of his relatives Ashok to the Police Station to enquire about petitioner NO.1, and came to know that petitioner NO.1 is not in Police Station, as such, immediately the petitioner NO.3 filed a writ of habeas corpus vide W.P.No.20485 of 2023. He further contended that the respondent NO.2 has bore grudge on the petitioners due to previous conflicts, as such, he has falsely implicated the petitioners in Crime No.249/2023. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
4
SKS,J Crl.P.No.7329 of 2023
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and stated that the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.249/2023 as they obstructed the respondent NO.2 who is the Investigating Officer in Crime No.247/2023 while he was discharging his official duty along with his staff and was investigating the crime vehicle Eicher- 480 tractor. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and 1 (2012) 10 SCC 155 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.7329 of 2023 produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."
8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that while dealing with the petition filed under Section 482 of C.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration the averments made in the complaint and the averments recorded in the statements of the witnesses and if the averments made therein do not constitute any offence as alleged against the accused persons, then the proceedings against the accused persons are liable to be quashed. In the case on hand, there is no other material placed on record except the complaint filed by respondent No.2. In such circumstances, the Court is inclined to consider the averments made in the complaint.
9. The averments of the said complaint would reveal that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 obstructed the Police Officer on duty who is respondent No.2 from discharging his official duty i.e., the investigation in Crime No.247/2023. Further, it is also seen that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 abused the Officers in filthy language and there is no doubt 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.7329 of 2023 that the same amounts to abuse of process of law. At this juncture, it is also significant to note that the investigation in the case is not yet completed.
10. In view of the above discussion, and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori (supra) this Court is of the view that there are no merits in this Criminal Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioners are not served with notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer is directed to issue the same and follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 2 scrupulously. However, the petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when required by furnishing information and documents as sought by him in concluding the investigation. The petitioners shall file all the documents which they ought to file to prove that it do not come under the 2 (2014) 8 SCC 273 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.7329 of 2023 criminal offences and the Investigating Officer shall consider the same before filing appropriate report before the Magistrate.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 04.04.2024 PT 8 SKS,J Crl.P.No.7329 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA P.D.ORDER IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.7329 of 2023 Date: 04.04.2024 PT