Telangana High Court
Kamapalli Nagala Reddy Varun vs The State Of Telangana on 11 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6161 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.1 in Cr.No.399 of 2024 dated 02.04.2024 before Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 448, 342, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant, lodged a complaint against the petitioner stating that she got acquainted with him in her workplace where after a while the petitioner proposed her to which she responded with an acceptance and with a view to marry each other they got intimated physically for couple of times. Later, when she got vexed with the behavior of petitioner, she maintained distance with him due to which he began to harass her mentally by calling her several times. Aggrieved thereby, she lodged a complaint against him 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6161 OF 2024 before Raidurgam Police Station and left to Dubai, due to which the petitioner began to blackmail her stating that he would post their intimate photos and videos in social media so as to defame her. Due to unbearable torture, the respondent No.2 compromised the case that was registered against petitioner. It was further stated that on 11.01.2024 when respondent No.2 was in deep grief of the death of her father, the petitioner arrived at her flat and abused her verbally and also harassed her physically by raping her and by vigorously scratching her private parts but due to hues and cries of respondent No.2, he feared arrival of neighbors and left her flat.
3. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police registered a case against the petitioner, arraying him as accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 448, 342, 323 and 506 of IPC. Aggrieved thereby, this criminal petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri Kalyan Dileep Sunkara, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1, and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6161 OF 2024 No.1 - State. None appeared for respondent No.2/de facto complainant.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that even if the allegations leveled against the petitioner are taken in entirety, no offence, as alleged against him would constitute. He contended that the averments of the complaint are completely based on false plot and it was the respondent No.2 who cheated petitioner by marrying two other persons. He lamented that admittedly, the respondent No.2 had compromised the earlier complaint that was filed against the petitioner and thereafter, she filed the complaint that is under challenge, but it is to be noticed that there are ample of differences in the facts narrated in both complaints and the same would depict the mala fide intentions of respondent No.2 to harass the petitioner. He asserted that petitioner is a law abiding innocent citizen who got trapped by respondent No.2 and her false tactics which is hugely affecting his career. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
4
SKS,J Crl.P.No.6161 OF 2024
6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, strongly opposed the contentions made by learned counsel for petitioner and submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner would amount to serious offence and as the matter is at the stage of investigation, quashing of proceedings initiated against the petitioner would cause grave prejudice and injustice to respondent No.2. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on perusing the material placed on record, it is noted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are that he has harassed and abused respondent No.2 on several occasions and on 11.01.2024 he entered the flat of respondent No.2 and tortured her stating that he would show her the grudge of a man and raped her, whereas, it is the stand of petitioner that all the allegations leveled against him are false and baseless and are averred only with an intention to harass him and that it is the respondent No.2 herself who is at fault and had cheated on him.
5
SKS,J Crl.P.No.6161 OF 2024
8. 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 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 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6161 OF 2024 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 further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not."
9. In addition to the above, it is also just and proper to mention that to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6161 OF 2024 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 before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in 2 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 8 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6161 OF 2024 their true perspective without sufficient material."
10. 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 physical and mental abuse and raping the respondent No.2. Though it is the specific contention of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner stands on no fault zone, as the case is still at the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this stage as the matter requires detailed investigation.
11. 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 investigation and there are no merits in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings 9 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6161 OF 2024 against the petitioner. Therefore, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 11.11.2024 PT 10 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6161 OF 2024 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA P.D ORDER IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.6161 OF 2024 Date:11.11.2024 PT