Telangana High Court
Madupu Venu Gopal Rao And 3 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 12 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3329 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 petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.9809 of 2021 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Rachakonda Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 read with 34 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, Meerpet Police Station, Rachakonda Police Station, stating that on 30.10.2021, some unknown persons came to her home and knocked the gate and when she came outside and questioned them one person introduced himself by name Venu i.e., petitioner No.1 and asked for Teja, who has given this address. In the meantime, they criminally trespassed into her home and threatened her with dire consequences and told that Teja was supposed to give them some money, otherwise, they put the tent infront of her home. Basing on the said complaint, the Police 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3329 of 2022 registered a case in Crime No.850 of 2021, for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC and the same was numbered as C.C.No.9809 of 2021 before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Rachakonda Commissionerate.
3. Heard Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Sri Chavali Ramanand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that one Teja gave the address of respondent No.2, as such, the petitioners went to her house for collecting the money. He further submitted that the matter is purely civil in nature. Only to avoid the payment to the petitioners, respondent No.2 filed the criminal case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that primarily, respondent No.2 has no locus standi to file a complaint against the petitioners. Secondly, there are no ingredients of 506 of IPC., as alleged. The requisite permission as required under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C., has not been 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3329 of 2022 obtained by the Investigating Officer to investigate into the subject crime. Without obtaining such permission, final report is filed in the subject crime. As such, it is bad in law for non- compliance of obtaining requisite permission under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. As there is no commission of cognizable offence, the petitioners cannot be proceeded. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Judgment of this Court in Criminal Petition No.3653 of 2015. Therefore, the allegations leveled against the petitioners are vague and baseless and prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against them.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 respectively submitted that trial has almost completed and all the witnesses are already examined. At this stage, quashing of proceedings do not arise and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and the material placed on record, the prime contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the offences as alleged by the prosecution are non cognizable and the Police filed charge sheet without any permission from the 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3329 of 2022 Magistrate. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 448 and 506 read with 34 of IPC.
8. 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.
9. 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 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3329 of 2022
10. In the present case, it is to be taken note that though Section 506 of IPC is a non-cognizable offence, the Section 448 of IPC is a cognizable offence. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that there are no averments to constitute the offence under Section 448 of IPC and that the Section 506 of IPC being non-cognizable offence, the Police cannot register the case without seeking permission of the Court under Section 155 of Cr.P.C.
11. On going through the averment of the criminal trespass that is made in the complaint and chargesheet, wherein, it is shown that the accused have criminally trespassed into the house of respondent NO.2 and threatened her. Further, the statements of the witnesses would show that the petitioners have entered into the compound. Therefore, the same cannot be decided at this stage and the same requires trial.
12. While dealing with the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court cannot conduct mini trial and the jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. When there are prima facie averments made in the complaint to constitute offence under Section 448 of IPC which is a cognizable offence, the Police can register FIR even without 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3329 of 2022 the permission of the Court and moreover, in the case on hand, the Section 506 of IPC registered against the petitioners is non- cognizable. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners are not applicable in this case. Further, as there are prima facie averments made against the petitioner in the complaint, chargesheet and the statements of witnesses, this Court is of the firm view that the matter requires trial and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners cannot be quashed and this petition is liable to be dismissed.
13. In view of the above discussion and as well as the law laid down by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori (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.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
___________ K. SUJANA Date: 12.06.2024 SAI 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3329 of 2022