Telangana High Court
Dr. Parimal Roy vs The State Of Telangana on 3 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2524 of 2022
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 in S.C.No.91 of 2019 on the file of the learned X Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Sessions Judge, FTC for Atrocities Against Women-1, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (I) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.')
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Mahankali Police Station, Mahankali Division, North Zone, Secunderabad stating that she is working as Associate Maharashtra, Animals and Fisheries Science University, Bombay Veterinary College. It is stated that prior to the filing of the complaint i.e., 24 years ago, she got married with one Mr. Badal Chandra Majee and having one daughter. Prior to her marriage, she came across with the petitioner, came up with an offer of the post Vice-Chancellor, and convinced her to meet him at Hyderabad, in furtherance of his evil plan of enjoying her. 2
SKS,J Crl.P.No.2524 of 2022 The petitioner asked her to book a hotel in Hyderabad, as such, she booked a hotel and on 30.08.2017 and they checked the room and started working on application and intimated him about it. On 31.08.2017, the petitioner came outside of her room and said that he came by flight from Banglore and took her for dinner and asked her to work on the application after dinner as he has come to help her for some purpose and the work would be done in the same night. After dinner, they returned to her room and started working on the application. During that time, while working on the application, the petitioner tried to convince her to take physical advantage by offering her many benefits. On persistent refusal, the petitioner became angry and started badmouthing her and her family and due to which, she got terrified. The petitioner further threatened to take the life of her husband if she does not surrender to his sexual demand. And he kept pretending that the petitioner needs to groom her and persuaded her to meet him at Kolhapur by threatening with dire consequences to respondent No.2 and the life of her husband with fear in her heart, she reached Kolhapur on 23.09.2017 and 24.09.2017 at Kolhapur and then the petitioner committed the offence of rape. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2524 of 2022 Crime No.48 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Section 376(I) and 506 of the IPC and the same was numbered as S.C.No.91 of 2019 on the file of the learned X Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Sessions Judge, FTC for Atrocities Against Women-1, Nampally, Hyderabad.
3. Heard Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri T. Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Smt. C. Vasundara Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a bare perusal of the complaint shows that when they met at Hyderabad, the petitioner tried to convince her to take physical advantage by offering many benefits. At that time, she did not given any complaint against the petitioner to her husband or in the Police Station. Later, when the petitioner and respondent No.2 met at Kolhapur in hotel, she complained that the petitioner committed rape. Learned counsel further submitted that as respondent No.2 being the well-educated person, she could not say that she was under threat to the life of her husband, as such, the complaint itself is a frivolous complaint. 4
SKS,J Crl.P.No.2524 of 2022
5. Learned counsel further submitted that for the post of Vice-Chancellor and ISVIB Fellow award only she booked the hotel for convincing the petitioner. On refusal of the same, she bored grudge and she filed the present complaint. He further submitted that the incident was occurred two times in the year 2017 but the complaint was given in March, 2018. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner has influenced respondent No.2 for sexual intercourse, as such, the allegations leveled against the petitioner are vague and baseless. Hence, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against him.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner threatened respondent No.2 that if she do not co-operate for sexual intercourse, he will kill her husband. Earlier, she did not inform the same to her husband, as such, she did not given the complaint. After informing the same to her husband, she gave complaint. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.2 withdraw her name in ISVIB Fellow award and there is no scope for filing false complaint. Therefore, the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature, which requires trial and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
5
SKS,J Crl.P.No.2524 of 2022
7. 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.
8. 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."1
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2524 of 2022
9. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the prime contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint itself is a concocted story and the incident was occurred in the year 2017 and the complaint was given in the year 2018. Further, respondent No.2 herself booked a hotel for two persons in Kolhapur for convincing him for ISVIB Fellow award only, which shows that she is not an innocent lady. The learned counsel appearing for respondents informed the Court that respondent No.2 withdraw her name from the ISVIB Fellow award and there is no scope for filing the complaint.
10. In view of the facts and circumstance of the case, it is noted that primarily respondent No.2 is under the influence of the petitioner for the purpose of ISVIB Fellow award and later she withdraw her name from ISVIB fellowship. When respondent No.2 withdraws her name from the said fellowship, giving false complaint, as she was not selected for fellowship does not arise. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no truth in the complaint and the petitioner is no way concerned with the allegations leveled against him. Further, whether respondent No.2 has herself withdrawn her name from ISVIB Fellow award or not can be decided only after full-fledged trial. 7
SKS,J Crl.P.No.2524 of 2022
11. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down in Surendra Kori case (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.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
___________ K. SUJANA Date: 03.06.2024 SAI