Telangana High Court
Polavarapu Akhil vs State Of Telangana on 4 July, 2024
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1638 of 2020
ORDER:
Petitioner is seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.334 of 2020 on the file XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 186, 504, 506 and 179 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and perused the record. There is no representation for the 2nd respondent.
3. On the complaint lodged by one M.Venugopal, PC-4070 of Karkhana Police Station on 26.12.2019 alleging that on the said date when he called up the petitioner to check his presence, as he was suspect in Cr.No.1 of 2013 of Mangalhat PS registered under the provisions of NDPS Act, the petitioner behaved rudely stating that he was a Lawyer and that the police should not come to his house to check his presence and further threatened that they have to face serious repercussions if they come to his house to check his details. Basing on the contents of said complaint, the aforesaid case has been registered against the petitioner.
2 JS, J Crl.P.No.1638 of 2020
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that a false case was registered against the petitioner on earlier occasion in Cr.No.1 of 2013 of Mangalhat PS under the provisions of NDPS Act and after full-fledged trial, the said case had ended in acquittal. On the pretext of registration of said case, the Police are harassing the petitioner by repeatedly making phone calls to him. It is further contended that all the aforesaid offences registered against the petitioner are non-cognizable offences, therefore, the Police themselves cannot investigate into the same without the orders of competent criminal Court. It is also contended that the petitioner is now practicing Advocate and is a responsible citizen and he never indulged in any other crime, and in spite of the same, he is being harassed by the Police by repeatedly making phone calls. It is further contended that he never abused or behaved rudely with Police and all the allegations levelled against him are false, and hence, the case against him is liable to be quashed.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that in view of registration of earlier crime against the petitioner under the provisions of NDPS Act, the Police have to keep constant whistle on him and as a part of their duty, they often have to make phone calls to ensure his presence and also to know his movements from time to 3 JS, J Crl.P.No.1638 of 2020 time. It is contended that since the petitioner has behaved rudely with Police when a call was made to him to ensure his presence, the present case has been registered. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. The main ground urged by the petitioner is that the offences under Sections 186, 504, 506 and 179 of IPC are non-cognizable offences, and hence, Police cannot investigate into the same without the permission of competent criminal Court. In this connection, he has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others 1, wherein, it is held as under.
"Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code."
7. Counsel for petitioner has also relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Crl.Rev.P.No.569 of 2017, dated 01.07.2019, wherein, it is held that no Court shall take cognizance of any offences punishable under Sections 172 to 178 of IPC except on the complaint in writing of the public 1 AIR 1992 SC 604 4 JS, J Crl.P.No.1638 of 2020 servant concerned to the Court and has to obtain permission from the Court in terms of Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C.
8. It is further contended that though Sections 504 and 506 of IPC are not covered by Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C., since these two offences are also alleged to have been committed along with the offences under Sections 179 and 186 of IPC, all the offences are to be tried jointly, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Suresh Chandra Srivastava and Others2.
9. Apart from the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, a perusal of the charge sheet shows that four witnesses are shown in the case, who are all Police personnel. The Police, before going to the house of the petitioner to check his presence, should have taken 1 or 2 independent witnesses along with them so as to establish any untoward or unexpected acts that may be committed by the petitioner. The complainant is shown as LW-1 and the Constable who accompanied him is shown as an eye witness and the Head Constable who issued FIR is shown as LW-3 and the Sub- Inspector of Police is shown as LW-4. Without there being any independent witness to establish the alleged phone call and the rude behaviour of petitioner, it is difficult for the Court to record any findings 2 AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1108 5 JS, J Crl.P.No.1638 of 2020 against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
10. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.334 of 2020 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date:04.07.2024 Ksk