Telangana High Court
Nanumasa Veera Bhaskar, vs The State Of Telangana, on 2 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8489 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 notice, vide C.No.140/Cr/CI-NKD/2024, dated 27.06.2024 issued by respondent No.2-Circle Inspector of Police, Nekkonda, Warangal District to the petitioners in Crime No.140 of 2024 in Chennaraopet Police Station, Warangal District.
2. Heard Sri A Rupadevi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners being the accused, the Police cannot serve notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C on them. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has no power to direct the petitioners to produce the incriminating material in their possession under Section 91 Cr.P.C. Therefore, prayed the Court to set aside the impugned notice issued by respondent No.2, vide C.No.140/Cr/CI-NKD/2024, dated 27.06.2024. 2
SKS,J Crl.P.No.8489 of 2024
4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Kubhum Anand Reddy vs. The State of Telangana 1 , wherein in paragraph No.12, it is held as under:
"12. In the present case also, admittedly, petitioner herein is accused No.1 in the aforesaid crime. Respondent No.1 has issued notice 29.03.2021 under Section - 91 Cr.P.C. directing petitioner herein to produce relevant documents mentioned in the above. Therefore, respondent No.1 is not having power under Section - 91 of Cr.P.C. to direct the petitioner to produce a particular document which is incriminatory against him. Therefore, the action of respondent No.1 in directing the petitioner herein to produce the aforesaid documents is contrary to the procedure laid down under Section - 91 of Cr.P,.C. also the principle laid down by the High Court in the aforesaid decision and in violation of Article - 20 (3) of the Constitution of India."
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the criminal petition is filed challenging the notice 1 Crl.P.no.3023 of 2021 decided on19.04.2021 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.8489 of 2024 issued by respondent No.2, vide C.No.140/Cr/CI-NKD/2024, dated 27.06.2024, under Section 91 Cr.P.C. However, it is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners being the accused, the Police cannot serve notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Srinivas Reddy vs. State of Telangana 2, wherein in paragraph No.9, it is held as under:
"9. In view of the above authoritative pronouncements, coming to the facts of the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner herein is accused No.1 in Crime No.146 of 2020, registered for the offences under Sections -403, 406 and 420 of IPC. Respondent No.4 - Investigating Officer directed the petitioner herein to produce the aforesaid information from him vide impugned notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. The said information/documents sought by the Investigating Officer is from the possession of petitioner - accused No.1 and the same is incriminating material which is Investigating Officer cannot call for the petitioner - accused No.1 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned notice is illegal and the action of respondent No.4 in called for the said information, which is incriminating material, from the possession of accused No.1 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. is illegal, violative of the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments and against the protection guaranteed under Article - 20 2 2021 SCC OnLine TS 1406 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.8489 of 2024 (3) of the Constitution of India. Further, respondent No.4 has no power to direct the petitioner - accused No.1 to produce the incriminating material from his possession."
8. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Srinivas Reddy (supra 2) and this Court in Kubhum Anand Reddy (supra 1), respondent No.2 has no power to issue the impugned notice to the petitioners under Section - 91 Cr.P.C. to furnish incriminating material and therefore, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned notice issued by respondent No.2, vide C.No.140/Cr/CI-NKD/2024, dated 27.06.2024.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 02.08.2024 SAI