Telangana High Court
Poreddy Manaswinin Daram Narmadaha vs The State Of Telangana on 26 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1486 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.569 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District, registered for the offense punishable under Sections 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.') and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act').
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant, who is Head Constable in Sircilla Police Station, registered a complaint against the petitioner stating that as per the instructions of the Inspector of Police to serve 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused No.3 in crime No.100 of 2020, as her involvement is clearly established in the said crime, accused No.3 in Crime No.100 of 2020 and her daughter, who is the petitioner herein, appeared before respondent No.2. As per the instructions of SHO Sircilla Police Station, respondent No.2 tried to serve notice to accused No.3 in Crime No.100 of 2020 but she refused to take notice. Later, the petitioner 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1486 of 2024 replied that 'Maa amma meeruiche notice meeda santhakam cheyyadu' and called and pulled her mother aside, thrown respondentNo.2 and started capturing video in the mobile and did not support respondent No.2 to serve the notice. When respondent No.2 warned her not to use mobile phone in the premises of Police Station, and tried to took the mobile phone, the petitioner thrown away respondent No.2 and abused her in filthy language and caught hold of her hair, Uniform collor and beat her with hands, as a result, she received injuries. Therefore, respondent No.2 registered a complaint against the petitioner in Crime No.156 of 2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332 of IPC and Section 3 of the Act.
3. Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a false case was registered against the mother of the petitioner in Crime No.100 of 2020 and she was arrayed as accused No.3 in the said crime. At the time of registration of the said crime the mother of the petitioner was in USA and she did not 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1486 of 2024 commit any offence. Further, when CI of Police at Sircilla called the mother of the petitioner and threatened her with dire consequences to sign on some of the blank papers, she refused. The CI of Police, colluded with the complainant in the said crime and after taking bribe from him, obtained signatures of the mother of the petitioner forcibly. Therefore, the petitioner questioned the illegal and unlawful activities of the Police. Hence, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are baseless, as such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against her.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the statement of witnesses reveals that the petitioner abused respondent No.2 in filthy language and damaged the public property in the Police Station. Since the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, quashing of the proceedings at this stage, do not arise. Hence, 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 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1486 of 2024 the complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offence as alleged by the Police.
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. As seen from the record, it appears that the petitioner obstructed the official duties of respondent No.2, damaged public property in the Police Station and abused her in filthy language. The statement of witnesses also shows that the 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1486 of 2024 petitioner is involved in obstructing the duties of respondent No.2. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence took place at the scene of offence and it requires full- fledged trial. Therefore, 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.
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 Date: 26.04.2024 SAI