Telangana High Court
Dundigalla Ragavendhra vs State Of Telangana on 5 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10044 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/sole accused in CC.No.1221 of 2024 on the file of the I Junior Civil Judge cum I Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy District, at LB.Nagar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 42 read with 41 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'JJ Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant, who is working as Legal cum Probation Officer, DCPU, Medchal Malkajgiri District, lodged a complaint against the petitioner stating that basing on the official orders obtained from CWC,DCPU Team, he conducted a rescue operation in an organization run by petitioner by name "Vatsalya Voluntary Organization" and found that the said organization was run by inducing minors. It was stated 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10044 OF 2024 that the said minors were immediately sent to Government Homes.
3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police registered a case and upon completion of due investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 42 read with 41 of JJ Act. Aggrieved thereby, this criminal petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri Tupakula Nikhil, learned counsel for petitioner/accused, and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondents.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the Police had proceeded against the petitioner without there being any iota of evidence and truth. He contended that neither the contents of FIR., nor the contents of charge sheet would ex facie disclose any specific set of allegations against the petitioner in order to attract the offences as alleged. He lamented that there are absolutely no ingredients to attract Section 41 read with 42 of JJ Act, and averred that bare glance of Section 41(1) of JJ Act would disclose that in the event of any institution housing a "child in conflict with 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10044 OF 2024 law", as defined under Section 2(13) of JJ Act, or a "child in need of due care and protection", such institution shall register under Section 41(1) of JJ Act. He asserted that even the minor children who were sent to Government Homes were living in hostels with the consent of their parents and relatives, as such, in no instance, any illegal activity was being carried out in the premises of the organization.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner incessantly contended that as per the contents of the FIR., and charge sheet there are no triable issues in the matter, as such, initiating proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law. In support of the said contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Mehra Vs. State (NCT Delhi) and Another 1. Therefore, prayed this Court allow the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
7. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the contentions made by learned counsel for petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was 1 AIR 2013 SC 506 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10044 OF 2024 involved in running an organization in an unofficial manner by name "Vatsalya Voluntary Organization", where he exploited minor children for working in the organization. He asserted that 23 children were rescued by respondent No.2 in his rescue operation who were forced to work in his organization as his helpers. While advocating that there are serious allegations against the petitioner, he prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition as the matter requires full-fledged trial.
8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are that he was running an organization by name "Vatsalya Voluntary Organization" where the respondent No.2 on obtaining requisite official orders conducted a rescue operation and found 23 minor children who were allegedly exploited in the said organization by the petitioner so as to engage them as his helpers, whereas, it is the specific stand of learned counsel for the petitioner that minor children who were sent to Government Homes were living in hostels with the consent of their parents and relatives and that no illegalities as 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10044 OF 2024 averred in the complaint were in presence in the premises of the organization.
9. Meticulous perusal of the record would reveal that though it is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that children were present in the premises of organization with permission of their parents/relatives, it is an admitted fact that the respondent No.2 conducted rescue operation and found 23 minor children in the premises of the organization run by petitioner.
10. 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 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh 2, whereunder, in paragraph No.10 it was categorically held as below:
2
2023 SCC OnLine SC 379 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10044 OF 2024 "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 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 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10044 OF 2024 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."
11. 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 3, 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 3 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 8 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10044 OF 2024 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."
12. Keeping in view the above extracted portions and on reverting to the facts of the case on hand, it is noted that as per the prima facie averments made in the complaint, there are serious set of allegations against the petitioner with regard to exploiting minor children under the guise of running a voluntary organization in the name of "Vatsalya Voluntary Organization". Further, except merely stating that permissions were obtained by petitioner to run such organization, there is no whisper as to on what basis the said organization was being run. Whether the petitioner is involved into exploiting the minor children and whether required permissions were obtained by him to run such organization are matters that require full-fledged trial. 9
SKS,J Crl.P.No.10044 OF 2024
13. 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 2) and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Surender Kori (supra 3), 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. Therefore, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, the appearance of the petitioner/accused, before the trial Court, is dispensed with, unless his presence is specifically required during the course of trial, subject to the condition of petitioner/accused, be represented by his counsel on every date of hearing.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 05.11.2024 PT