Telangana High Court
Kottapally Ravi , Ravinder vs The State Of Telangana on 15 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6293 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.307 of 2023 of Bodhan Town Police Station, Nizamabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2) (f), 342, 506 and 195(A) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') and Section 3 read with 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the Act').
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Bodhan Town Police Station, Nizamabad District, against the petitioners stating that his brother died one year ago prior to filing of the complaint. His brother is having one wife and one daughter aged about 14 years. The wife of his brother is suffering from Tuberculosis disease and she along with her daughter are living by begging in surrounding houses. One fine day, when the minor girl going to the house of the petitioners to beg food in the evening, petitioner No.1, who is the brother of petitioner No.2, 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6293 of 2023 stood in front of his house, called the minor girl, caught hold of her hands and dragged her into tin shed beside the house of petitioner No.2. When she started shouting, petitioner No.1 closed her mouth and tied her hands with rope and committed rape. Petitioner No.2 after hearing the sound of somebody, threatened the girl and her mother not to disclose the matter to anybody. When respondent No.2 went to the house of petitioner No.2 and asked about the acts of petitioner No.1, then petitioner No.2 threatened him and offered Rs.10,000/- not to disclose the matter to anybody. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.307 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2) (f), 342, 506 and 195(A) read with 34 of IPC and Section 3 read with 4 of the Act. Hence, the present criminal petition.
3. Heard Ms. P. Lalitha Kamesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are the created story of the prosecution. No offence took place as 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6293 of 2023 alleged by the prosecution and it is only an under pre- determined abetment from the support of rival political parties. Police have not collected the CCTV footages and there is a delay of two days in filing the complaint. As such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged allegations made against the petitioners are heinous in nature. Further, in these type of cases, the delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that the investigation is at the initial stage and the Police have not filed the charge sheet. The Police have to collect the CCTV footage. At this stage, it cannot be decided that the allegations against the petitioners are vague. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offence as alleged by the Police.
4
SKS,J Crl.P.No.6293 of 2023
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 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. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioners are that the petitioner No.1 committed rape of the girl, who is a minor, threatened petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 not to reveal anything to anybody and offered money. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.2 is the ward councillor and due to the political rivalries only a false case was 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6293 of 2023 foisted against them. However, the victim is a minor girl and since there are allegations against the petitioners, which require trial, at this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations are baseless.
9. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 15.04.2024 SAI