Telangana High Court
Shaik Farooq vs The State Of Telangana on 5 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.375 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 7 and 10 to 12seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1991 of 2023on the file of the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad Building, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 353, 225 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant, working as the Sub Inspector of Police, lodged a complaint stating that on receipt of information from Mirzalguda T Junction that a DCM vehicle bearing No.TS12UB7929 whereunder, five members along with driver were present who were found carrying sevenoxen. On enquiry, it was found that the said oxen were carried for the purpose of 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.375 of 2024 slaughter during bakrid festival. The Police found that the said oxen were taken for slaughter without having authenticated certificate of veterinary doctor, as such, they were taken into custody and a case was filed against them. Thereafter, around seven to ten members claiming themselves as local leaders and relatives of accused persons entered into the Police station and argued with the escort staff enquiring as to why their men were kept in the custody and obstructed the duties of escort staff who were present in the Police station to escort the accused persons for escaping from lawful custody.
3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police investigated the matter and on completion of investigation a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 225 read with Section 34 of IPC. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri M.Rathan Singh, learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 4, 6, 7 and 10 to 11, and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.375 of 2024 appearing for the respondent No.1 - State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the remand case diary, there are no allegations against the petitioners which states that there was any criminal force applied on any of the Police Officers, thus, the very invocation of Section 353 of IPC itself amounts to abuse of process of law. He contended that without there being any prima facie case, the proceedings against the petitioners were initiated even though the case is bereft of basic ingredients to make out alleged offences against the petitioners. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submitted that the petitioners/accused persons obstructed the Investigating Officer from discharging his duties and argued with the escort staff who were present in the Police Station for the purpose of preventing the accused persons from escaping. He 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.375 of 2024 contended that the allegations against the petitioners/accused persons are serious in nature, as such, the matter requires full fledged trial. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the primary allegations leveled against the petitioners is that they arrived at police station where their relatives were taken in custody and obstructed the Investigating Officer from discharging his official duties and also argued with the escort staff who were present to prevent the escape of the persons who were taken in custody as they were carrying seven oxen for the purpose of slaughter, without even having valid and authenticated certificate of veterinary doctor.The primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is with regard to the presence of petitioners in the scene of offence and their further contention is that there is no criminal force used in the said incident. Mere disputing the presence is not a ground to quash the proceedings. Further, whether any criminal force is used or not 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.375 of 2024 cannot be decided at this stage and the same requires trial.
8. At this stage, it is imperative to note that to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint would prima facie show that the offence as alleged by the Police constitutes.
9. As per thejudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in theState of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, paragraph No.14 reads as under:
"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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 155 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.375 of 2024 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."
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori (supra) this Court is of the view that there are no merits in this Criminal Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date:05.06.2024 PT