Telangana High Court
Yendluru Suresh Guruji Triloknath vs State Of Telangana on 26 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6558 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in P.R.C.No.115 of 2023 in Cr.No.640 of 2021 (charge sheet No.1214 of 2021 dated 14.03.2023) pending on the file of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 364, 302, 201, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that he is native of Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh, but he resides with his maternal uncle (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') in Net Away Hostel, Road NO.6, Addagutta Society, KPHB Colony. However, in view of his semester examination, on 08.07.2021 when he went to his native place, he used to contact the deceased time and again over phone calls. On 19.07.2021 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6558 OF 2024 when the deceased enquired about the return of respondent NO.2 to Hyderabad, the respondent No.2 told that he would come on the next day as his journey ticket got cancelled. However, when the respondent No.2 returned to hostel, he could not find the deceased anywhere and when he attempted to contact him over phone, his efforts went in vain as he found that the phone of deceased is switched off. Even after enquiry in the vicinity and with people of acquaintance, when the respondent No.2 found no traces of deceased, as such, he lodged missing compliant before the Police Station.
3. On receipt of the said missing complaint, the Police commenced the investigation in the matter and found in the CCTV Camera footages that on 20.07.2021 one Sudhakar Babu, Mallesh and others held and abducted the deceased in a red car bearing No.AP28DD4884. On enquiry, it was found that the said Sudhakar Babu and Mallesh quarreled with the deceased on an earlier occasion for abusing Guruji/petitioner/accused No.3 and also threatened to kill him.
3
SKS,J Crl.P.No.6558 OF 2024
4. During the course of investigation, on receipt of credible information, on 02.08.2021 the Police apprehended the said Mallesh-Accused No.1, Sudhakar Babu-Accused No.2 and on their interrogation, they voluntarily confessed that they along with Guruji/petitioner/accused No.3 and one Krishnam Raju- Accused No.4 conspired to murder the deceased and in pursuance of the same, they abducted the deceased, beat him with iron pipe and throttled him to death and carried his dead body to Sunnipenta burial ground and burnt the corpse through Katikapari by false representation.
5. On completion of due investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against the accused persons whereunder, the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.3. Aggrieved thereby, this petition is filed.
6. Heard Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.3, and Sri Rurdresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the Office of learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2. 4
SKS,J Crl.P.No.6558 OF 2024
7. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is highly respectable person in the society and the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are some of his followers along with large number of followers and patients who seek his help in treating them medically and spiritually. He contended that the accused Nos.1 and 2 may have a grudge on the deceased for his alleged comments on the character of their wives, as a result of which they might have committed crime and that the petitioner has nothing to do with the same. He asserted that in the absence of prima facie material collected on the basis of the statements of respondent NO.2 and co-accused, a case cannot be implicated against the petitioner. He lamented that there are no specific set of allegations leveled against the petitioner in the complaint, as well as, in the charge sheet and basing on mere suspicion, the petitioner cannot be implicated in the case and the same amounts to abuse of process of law.
8. In support of the said contentions, the learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Yogesh Alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra 1 it is observed that only suspicion of 1 (2008) 10 SCC 394 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6558 OF 2024 motive is not sufficient to bring home an offence of murder. He contended that the Investigation Officer is supposed to provide lead details of the offences in the charge sheet, is mandatory. In support of the said contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharif Ahmed and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 2 whereunder, it was observed that the investigation officer must make clear and complete entries in the columns in the charge sheet so that the Court can clearly understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on file and the statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and that the role played by the accused in the crime should be clearly mentioned in the charge sheet for each of the accused persons, whereas, the same is not the case with regard to the averments made against the petitioner. Therefore, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
9. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1, submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner/accused No.3 are serious in nature and the offences registered are under 2 (2024) SCC OnLine SC 726 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6558 OF 2024 Sections 120-B, 364, 302, 201, 506 read with 34 of IPC. He contended that the in the present case there is presence of conspiracy theory to kill the uncle of respondent NO.2 and though there are no averments with regard to physical involvement of the petitioner/accused No.3 in the incident, the confessions of accused Nos.1 and 2 would reveal that the petitioner/accused No.3 was actively involved in the said conspiracy. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
10. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are no set of specific allegations made against the petitioner and even in the charge sheet there is no particular averment made which proves the role or involvement of petitioner in the crime.
11. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court cannot conduct a mini trial and is only inclined to take into account the averments made in the complaint, statements of witnesses and the charge sheet. That being so, it is vital to note the 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6558 OF 2024 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh 3, whereunder, in paragraph No.10 it was categorically held as below:
"10. From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved.
This is not the stage where the
prosecution/investigating agency is/are
required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the 3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379 8 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6558 OF 2024 prosecution/investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not."
12. In addition to the above, it is also just and proper to mention that 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 against the accused persons, as alleged by the Police. That being so, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 4, 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 4 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 9 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6558 OF 2024 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."
13. Keeping in view the above extracted portions and on reverting to the facts of the case on hand, it is noted that though there are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioner/accused No.3 directly at the scene of offence which shows his involvement in the crime, there is no dispute that the accused Nos.1 and 2 confessed a conspiracy theory describing the involvement of petitioner/accused No.3. Therefore, whether there is direct or indirect involvement of 10 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6558 OF 2024 petitioner/accused No.3 in the alleged crime cannot be decided at this stage and the same requires full-fledged trial.
14. In view of the above discussion and having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Central Bureau (supra 3) and State of Madhya Pradesh (supra 4), this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires trial and there are no merits in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 and therefore, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 26.06.2024 PT