Telangana High Court
Sri Mesram Sai Viviek, vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 July, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6247 of 2023
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/accused No.2 in C.C.No.03 of 2017 on the file of the learned special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Karimnagar District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1), (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police stating that his father-in-law is in possession of Plot No.7-2-46/3, admeasuring 46.66 square yards of house situated at Bhukthapur, Adilabad Town. Later, his father-in-law registered the said plot in the name of his son through a registered sale deed but, due to oversight, the extent of the said house was mentioned as 50 yards instead of 46.66 square yards. As his father-in-law has become bedridden due to severe ill health, respondent No.2 obtained loan for the medical expenditure of his father-in-law. One Sri Linga 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6247 of 2023 Reddy, Advocate observed that the extent of the house site was exaggerated in the registration documents due to oversight instead of actual extent and said thatif the same can be rectified through rectification deed, he would arrange the loan. Thereafter, respondent No.2 approached Senior Assistant at Sub-Registrar Office and handed over the Xerox copies of previous registration documents, with a request to come to the home for taking the signatures of his father-in- law. In turn, the said Senior Assistant demanded an amount of Rs.7,000/- as bribe for himself, his Junior Assistant and Attender for completing the registration process.
3. Thereafter, on persistent requests of respondent No.2 that he is facing financial problems and was unable to give bribe, finally the Senior Assistant demanded an amount of Rs.2,000/- for himself and Rs.1,500/- for his Junior Assistant and Rs.500/- for his Attender, totaling to Rs.4,000/- as bribe to complete the registration. As there was no other option, respondent No.2 agreed to give the bribe. Later, as instructed by the officers of Sub-Registrar Office, respondent No.2 obtained medical certificate in respect of his father-in-law and submitted a letter to the Senior Assistant by enclosing the 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6247 of 2023 medical certificate, with a request for registration of rectification deed on the ground that he is bedridden due to ill health. The said Senior Assistant visited his uncle's house and received an amount of Rs.1,000/- for private registration. Two days after taking the signatures of father-in-law of respondent No.2, he again went to the Sub-Registrar Office, for which, the Senior Assistant asked to give an amount of Rs.4,000/- as advance otherwise the rectification deed will not be provided. As respondent No.2 was unwilling to get his work, he approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B. Karimnagar at Adilabad and lodged a complaint.
4. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.48/RCT-ACB-KNR/2013 and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.03 of 2017 before the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB, Cases, Karimnagar.
5. Heard Sri M. Bhoopati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Sridhar Chikyala, learned Special Public Prosecutor of ACB Cases (TS), for respondent No.1-State.
4
SKS,J Crl.P.No.6247 of 2023
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation that due to the mistake of the registration staff the measurement of the subject site was recorded as 50 square yards instead of 46.66 square yards but it was totally wrong because the sale deed was drafted and got registered by respondent No.2. He further submitted that private registration should be done at the behest of the Registrar only, and upon the directions of the Registrar only the Senior Assistant along with Attender visited the house of the father- in-law of respondent No.2 and done the registration.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a perusal of the complaint shows that the Senior Assistant asked respondent No.2 that whether the bribe amount was brought or not, but the petitioner even did not speak to respondent No.2 about the bribe. Therefore, the allegations leveled against the petitioner do not constitute any offence, as such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against him.
8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that the tainted amount of Rs.4,000/- was recovered from A3 at the instance of AO1 and 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6247 of 2023 AO2 and that there is a demand of bribe from the petitioner for handing over the rectification deed, as such, it requires trial and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
9. 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.
10. 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 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6247 of 2023 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."
11. In the present case, it appears that though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner did not demand bribe, the averments in the complaint shows that the Senior Assistant has demanded the bribe from respondent No.2 for handing over of the rectification deed. A perusal of the charge sheet shows that the ACB officials on 26.11.2013 visited the Sub-Registrar office and organized the chemical test in glass tumblers separately and when A3 rinsed both hand fingers of AO1, AO2, and A3 separately in which A3 rinsed his right hand fingers yielded positive result and there was no change in remaining five glass tumblers. the tainted amount of Rs.4,000/- was recovered from A3 at the instance of AO1 and AO2. Later, one of the mediators counted and compared the numbers and denominations of the currency notes already noted in the pre-trap proceedings and found them tallied. The DSP organized chemical test by dipping the inner flap of left side front pocket of the wearing pant of A3, which came into contact with the tainted currency notes and 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6247 of 2023 yielded positive result. Though there is no recovery from the petitioner, the main allegations are against AO1 and AO2 and the recovery is from A3. Further, AO1, AO2 and A3 demanded and accepted the bribe. As per the averments in the complaint, all the three are gained, therefore, it requires trial.
12. In view of the above, Prima facie, it appears that there are allegations against the petitioner and therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the said allegations are frivolous and the same requires trial.
13. 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 are liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
___________ K. SUJANA Date: 18.07.2024 SAI