Telangana High Court
Smt. B. Ramadevi vs The State Of Telangana on 5 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6481 OF 2023
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 petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in CC.No.3575 of 2023 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that on 07.03.2023 on two occasions the petitioner No.1 broke the door lock of the CCTV storage room and also disconnected the WiFi of the security cameras. It was stated that the said room was locked for security reasons and its access keys was available only with the Managing Committee Member of the building. On 08.03.2023 the door was repaired and cameras were reactivated but on 09.03.2023 the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 attempted to tamper the door again. It was alleged that 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6481 OF 2023 petitioner No.1 had criminally trespassed the rest property by parking her vehicle in the parking spots of other residents in spite of notification of not to do so ; that petitioner No.2 parked her scooter in unauthorized common areas which leads to causing security issues and extraneous expense to respondent No.2 and other residents of the building ; that petitioner No.2 also threatened the children of the building and other ladies and abused them severely.
3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police registered a case and upon completion of due investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 506 of IPC. Aggrieved thereby, this criminal petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondents No.1 - State, and Sri Sharad Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are no way concerned with the alleged offences 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6481 OF 2023 and the respondent No.2 has dragged petitioners in false case only with an intention to harass them. He further submitted that respondent No.2 is a tenant of 1st floor and the other witness is caretaker of 3rd floor and that except the family of petitioners, no other owners or their families reside in 5th floor of the building. He contended that it was respondent No.2 who used to create trouble by parking his vehicle across the bay, obstructing the way of petitioners and create troubles. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and learned counsel for respondent No.2, respectively, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit stating that the family of respondent No.2 had been victim of torture and harassment by petitioners on one or the other pretext. He contended that petitioners used to pass vulgar comments on respondent No.2 and his family and also use filthy language time and again, so as to abuse them. He lamented that though there were a set of guidelines to be 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6481 OF 2023 followed by residents, the petitioners proceeded with breaching into the security room by breaking the lock and also disturbing the WiFi cables of security CCTV cameras. Therefore, prayed this Court dismiss the criminal petition.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is to be noted that the primary allegation leveled against the petitioners is that on several occasions they abused respondent No.2 and his family members and on 07.03.2023 and 09.03.2023 they broke the door lock of the storage room and disconnected the WiFi connection wires ; and that they park their vehicles in the unauthorized common area , whereas, it is the specific stand of petitioners that in spite of being innocent, they are dragged in false cases by respondent No.2.
8. On perusing the record it is seen that at the time of investigating the case, the statements of LWs.1 to 4 were recorded who are the residents of the same apartment, who stated that the storage room was locked for security reasons and the access key was available only with the Managing Committee Member of the building and even when the door 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6481 OF 2023 was repaired and cameras were re-activated, again an attempt was made by the petitioners to tamper with the door and cameras. It was further stated that the petitioners parked their vehicles in unauthorized areas and also threatened the children in the building and passing abusive comments on the family of respondent No.2.
9. 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 1, 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 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6481 OF 2023 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 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 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6481 OF 2023 further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not."
10. 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 2, 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 2 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 8 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6481 OF 2023 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."
11. 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 and charge sheet, there are serious set of allegations against the petitioners with regard to breaking the lock of the storage room and disconnecting the WiFi connections of CCTV security cameras ; parking their vehicles in unauthorized places and abusing and harassing children of the building owners and family members of respondent No.2. Therefore, it can be said there are matters that require full-fledged trial.
12. 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) and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Surender Kori (supra 2), this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires full fledged trial and there are no merits in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the 9 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6481 OF 2023 petitioners. Therefore, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 05.11.2024 PT