Shaik Ameena Rehamani vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 3043 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3060 of 2021

Between:-
Ms.Shaik Ameena Rehamani                       ....      Petitioner/Accused
                                        And
1) State of Andhra Pradesh,
represented by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Amaravati.                                     ....    Respondent No.1/State

2) B.Seetharamaiah                             .... Respondent No.2/De facto
                                                        Complainant
Counsel for the Petitioner               : Mr.J.Sudheer
Counsel for the Respondents              : Learned Public Prosecutor


ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings

initiated against the petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under

Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").

2. The petitioner herein, who is a practicing Advocate, is the sole

accused in Cr.No.155 of 2021 on the file of Lalapet Police Station, Guntur

Urban, Guntur District, registered for the said offence.

3. The facts of the case as set out in the petition, in brief, may be stated

as follows:-

On 20.04.2021, one Mr.Shaik Gouse Mohiddin received a call from the

Lalapet Police Station requiring him to attend the Police Station with regard

to a complaint made by his wife. As he was seriously injured in the attack on

him on 11.04.2021 by the henchmen of his wife, in respect of which,

Nallapadu Police registered Cr.No.296/2021, he was not in a position to visit

the Police Station. Therefore, his mother Smt.Shaik Samshad Begum under

the threat of registration of F.I.R on her son, went to the Police Station at

around 5.30 p.m. and she was detained by the Police. She informed the

Police that she was on fasting in view of Ramzan month and requested them

to allow her to leave the Police Station as she has to break her fast,

the Police did not allow her to leave the Police Station, spoke to her in a

rude manner and informed that until her son comes and report to the Police

Station, she will not be allowed to go. Then, she contacted the petitioner,

who is an Advocate looking after their cases and requested her to persuade

the Police to let her go, as she is old and feeling weak due to fasting since

morning. In view of the request made by her, the petitioner went to the

Police Station, introduced herself as Lawyer of Smt.Shaik Samshad Begum

and on a query of the de facto complainant about the injury sustained by

Mr.Shaik Gouse Mohiddin, the petitioner took out her phone/mobile to show

the pictures of the injuries sustained by Mr.Shaik Gouse Mohiddin. To her

shock and surprise, one Constable dragged the petitioner's phone forcibly,

the said Constable as also the de facto complainant/D.S.P acted rudely,

shouted at the petitioner, threatened, humiliated and pushed her out of the

room. Under those circumstances, the petitioner switched on video in her

mobile phone and recorded the manner in which the Police started

humiliating her and on the next day i.e., on 21.04.2021 gave a written

representation to the Bar Association, Guntur and sent

representation/complaint on 22.04.2021 to the Director General of Police

and Superintendent of Police, Guntur, A.P. Human Rights Commission etc.,

to take action against the de facto complainant for humiliating, illegally

detaining and harassing the old and illiterate lady and also for humiliating

the petitioner, despite knowing fully well that the petitioner is an Advocate.

4. To overcome the misdeeds and misbehavior, the 2nd respondent

concocted a story about the incidents allegedly occurred on 20.04.2021 and

lodged a complaint on 24.04.2021, which was registered as

F.I.R.No.155 of 2021 on the file of the Lalapet Police Station.

5. The contents of the complaint as per the said F.I.R, reads as follows:-

"Occurred on 20.04.2021, at about 7.30 p.m at East sub-divisional police office, Lalapet, Guntur town and the same was reported in the PS on 24.04.2021 at 8.00 pm wherein the complainant Sri B.Seetharamaiah SDPO East sub-division, Guntur lodged a report stating that spandana petition received from the Supdt. of police with instructions to enquire and report compliance in this regard the complainant summoned the respondents for enquiry. One of the respondents along with another woman visited SDPO's office, respondent introduced the another woman as her daughter. During enquiry the said woman started shoot video with her mobile. On noticing the same the complainant objected and called his staff to collect the mobile, meanwhile the said woman introduced herself as Shaik Ameena Rehamani advocate and enraged over the staff, shouted loudly and grabbed the mobile from the hands of his staff and she resisted to discharge from legitimate duties. Hence FIR R/SI-2688."

Seeking to quash the F.I.R, the Criminal Petition was filed.

6. During pendency of the present Criminal Petition, the Police filed a

Charge Sheet vide C.F.R.No.1044/2023 on 17.02.2023 on the file of the

Court of the Learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur District. In view

of the said position, an amendment was sought to quash the Charge Sheet

filed vide C.F.R.No.1044/2023 by placing reliance on the Judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. vs. State

(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Anr. 1, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

"17. There is nothing in the words of this Section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court. Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced, and the allegations have materialized into a charge sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court."

7. In the light of the above legal position, the application seeking to

amend the prayer in the Criminal Petition was allowed by an Order dated

03.05.2023.

2018 SCC OnLine SC 2447

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.J.Sudheer referring to the

various grounds raised in the Criminal Petition, inter alia, contended that a

false case is foisted against the petitioner only with a view to wreak

vengeance against the petitioner for making complaints against the de facto

complainant to his higher-ups and highlighting the issue in Print and Social

Media. In elaboration, narrating the events that occurred on 20.04.2021 and

the subsequent dates, he strenuously contends that lodging of complaint on

24.04.2021 against the petitioner after a delay of 4 days, would make it

clear that the complaint is concocted and a counter-blast to the petitioner's

representations sent through the Registered Post on 21.04.2021 and

22.04.2021 to the Superintendent of Police, Bar Council, A.P. State Human

Rights Commission as also to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of

Andhra Pradesh about the highhanded action of the 2nd respondent and

Police personnel. He submits that the petitioner/a practicing Advocate went

to the Police Station to help her client who was detained by the Police

despite informing them that she has to break her fast, it being Ramzan time.

He submits that it is, in fact, the Police personnel who have taken the mobile

phone of the petitioner forcibly from her, humiliated her and taking/pulling

back her mobile by the petitioner would not attract the offence punishable

under Section 353 of IPC, as the essential ingredients of Assault or Use of

Criminal force with an intention to prevent or deter the public servant from

discharging his duty are absent. He further submits that the complaint was

lodged against the petitioner with an ulterior motive as she had questioned

the highhanded action of the 2nd respondent for violating the Fundamental

Rights of an old and illiterate lady, who was illegally detained in the Police

Station and lodging of the said complaint against the petitioner is nothing

but misuse of Penal Provisions and therefore the proceedings initiated

against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. The learned counsel submits

that in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paramvir

Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh & Others2 CCTVs are to be installed

mandatorily in all the Police Stations and though the petitioner sought for

CCTV footage through R.T.I application dated 24.04.2021 in respect of the

incident that took place on 20.04.2021, the same was not supplied for the

best reasons known to the Police officials. The learned counsel also places

reliance on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of

Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors.3 and Om Prakash & Ors.

Vs. State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of

Home, Ranchi - 1 & Anr.4

9. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand while

refuting the contentions submits that the 2nd respondent is justified in

lodging the complaint in the facts and circumstances of the case. He submits

that the delay in lodging the complaint is because of the fact that the

petitioner is an Advocate and the Police were hesitant to proceed against her

(2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 150

1992 AIR 604

(2012) 12 SCC 72

as it may affect her career. He further submits that as the Charge Sheet has

already been filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate, the petitioner can as

well participate in the Trial and prove that she is not guilty of the offence

alleged against her. He strenuously submits that it is not a case warranting

interference in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and prays for

dismissal of the quash petition.

10. This Court has considered the submissions made by the Learned

Counsel on both sides and perused the material on record, including a copy

of the Charge Sheet filed before the Court of the Learned IV Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Guntur vide C.F.R.No.1044/2023 dated 17.02.2023.

11. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to

mention that as seen from the complaint dated 24.04.2021, the allegations

made against the petitioner inter alia are that during enquiry she started to

shoot/film the conversation with her mobile and on noticing the same,

the complainant objected and called his staff to collect the mobile and the

petitioner enraged over the staff by introducing herself as an Advocate,

shouted loudly and grabbed the mobile phone from the hands of his staff.

However, in the Charge Sheet, it is stated as follows:-

"As soon as started enquiry over the allegations made by the LW4 the accused started shoot with her mobile with malafide intention. The LW2 who was present inside the room noticed the same, objected shooting the conversation inside the office of Sub-Divisional Police Officer and gently collected the mobile from the hands of accused. As soon as collected her mobile the accused enraged over LWs 2 and 3 his staff, picked up argument in a loud manner, snatched the mobile phone back from the hands of his staff and took out a visiting card showing LW1, declared herself as an advocate and said that Samshad Begum and her son Gouse Mohiddin are her clients."

12. In the Charge Sheet, it is further stated as follows:-

"In this case the accused having arrogant attitude and rudely behaved towards the LW1 and his staff, trying to film the happenings in the chamber with her mobile phone, when resisted by the staff of LW1 she enraged over them, revealed herself as an advocate, tried to divert topic, thereby obstructed the LW1 from discharging his legitimate duties, picked up arguments and behaved arrogantly. The accused having well knowledge in existing laws but she behaved arrogantly towards the police officer while discharging his legitimate duties. Being a practicing advocate she ignored giving respect towards existing laws and behaved adamantly. Hence prima facie case is made out against accused U/S 353 IPC."

13. Thus, a reading of the complaint and the contents of the Charge

Sheet discloses variations/discrepancies with regard to the alleged incident.

Be that as it may. While, it is the case of the Police that the petitioner

behaved arrogantly and obstructed the Police from discharging their

functions, it could be the other way round also as stated by the petitioner

that the Police have forcibly taken her mobile and humiliated her.

The petitioner's representations to the Superintendent of Police and others

complaining about the behaviour of the 2 nd respondent, gains significance

for that matter. Non-furnishing of CCTV footage is also a relevant factor

which weighs in her favour. If the petitioner, being an Advocate, acts with

self-respect and dignity, it cannot be termed as "arrogance". While the

petitioner as an Advocate has to act in accordance with Law, the Police are

also expected to behave themselves and discharge their duties, without

being swayed away by the "Police power or arrogance". Be that as it may.

This Court is not intending to delve further on this aspect, keeping in view

its limitations and deems it appropriate to examine the matter with

reference to the submissions as to whether Section 353 of IPC which is

extracted hereunder is attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case.

"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

14. On a plain reading of the above Section, to attract an offence under

Section 353 of IPC, there shall be an assault or use of Criminal force against

a public servant while he was discharging his duty or there should be an

intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty.

Going by the contents of the Complaint/Charge Sheet, it is clear that it is the

Police, who have taken the mobile from the petitioner on the premise that

she is filming/shooting the conversation inside the office of the

2nd respondent and thereafter she allegedly snatched back the same.

Such an act, to the mind of this Court, would not amount to assault or use

of Criminal force against the 2nd respondent, much less, with an intent to

prevent or deter him from discharging his duty. In a spur of movement,

if the petitioner pulls/snatches back her mobile, the same would not attract

the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC, as there is no intention on

her part to prevent discharge of duties by a public servant. The other

allegation that the petitioner is having arrogant attitude and behaved

adamantly, even assuming, the same would not amount to assault or use of

Criminal force to attract the offence under Section 353 of IPC.

15. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the view that

taking the allegations made against the petitioner at their face value, prima

facie do not constitute any offence alleged against her or make out a case

against her. Applying the parameters as set out in the

State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others referred to

supra, it is a fit case to exercise inherent powers of this Court under Section

482 Cr.P.C., as the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner in

the facts and circumstances constitutes abuse of process of Law.

16. In the light of the conclusions arrived at, the Criminal Petition is

allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the

complaint in Cr.No.155 of 2021 on the file of the Nallapadu Police Station,

Guntur Urban, Guntur District and the consequential Charge Sheet filed

before the Court of Learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur vide

C.F.R.No.1044/2023 dated 17.02.2023 are hereby quashed. There shall

be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date: 11.05.2023 IS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3060 of 2021

Date: 11.05.2023

IS