Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
R.Siva Ramudu vs The Public Prosecutor on 2 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4643 OF 2019
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed to call for the record
pertaining to C.C. No.576 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda, where the learned
Magistrate took cognizance for the offence under Sections
354A and 506 IPC on Protest Petition, and to quash the same.
2. Shorn of all the unnecessary facts:
The 2nd respondent/complainant has lodged a report to
the police alleging that the petitioner/accused caught hold the
hands of the complainant and threatened to accept/cooperate
sexually and it also avoids roaming of the office of the Mandal
Revenue Officer for pass books and the same will delivered at
the house of the respondent/complainant and also threatened
if the respondent/complainant do not accept she will face
Criminal case for the incident occurred on 08.05.2017.
3. The incident that was took place on 30.05.2017 at about
4.00 p.m.
4. The respondent/complainant has approached along with
her husband, the office of the petitioner/accused in respect of
mutation of lands in her name.
5. Basing upon the aforesaid allegation, the
respondent/complaint has lodged a report to the Rudravaram
Police, the police has registered the crime vide FIR No.44 of
2017, dated 05.06.2017 for the offence under Sections 354A
and 506 IPC and filed final report on 28.04.2018 stating that
the petitioner/accused attended Anantapur - Amaravati
Express Highway meeting at Collector Office and returned to
Tahsildar Office, Rudravaram at 5.30 pm and there is no
offence made out as alleged by the complainant, to avoid
themselves in the case registered against her and to made
suffer Tahsildar, the complainant has foisted false case.
6. After filing of the final report by the police Rudravaram in
Crime No.44 of 2017, the respondent/complainant has filed a
protest petition. The learned Magistrate after following due
procedure as contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code,
took cognizance against the petitioner/accused and issued
summons satisfying that the alleged incident would fall the
offence under Sections 354A and 506 IPC and allotted
C.C.No.576 of 2018.
7. Assailing the aforesaid calendar case, the
petitioner/accused herein filed the present Criminal Petition on
the ground that the present Criminal Petition maliciously
foisted against the petitioner herein as the respondent/
complainant and her husband approached the office of the
Tahsildar, Rudravaram on 08.05.2017 and they made a galata
there, therefore, the Village Revenue Officer, has lodged a
report to the police. On the said report, the police have
registered crime vide Crime No.41 of 2017 dated 31.05.2017, in
wreaking vengeance, the present false case was initiated and
the other ground that was raised on the date of the incident i.e.
30.05.2017, the petitioner attended for a meeting of Anantapur
- Amaravati Express Highway, held at Collector Office and he
returned at 4.30 pm and he was not present in the office of
Tahsildar (scene of offence) on the date of alleged incident,
therefore he would urge to quash the proceedings as the case
was filed with malicious intention and relied on the following
judgments:
(1) Amod Kumar Kanth v. Association of Victim of Uphaar
Tragedy and anr1, (2) Surjit Hazra v. State of West Bengal
and Another2, (3) Jitendra Prakash Sharma and Others v.
State of Jharkhand and another3, (4) Shino George and
Others v. State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Kerala and another4, (5) M.N. Ojha and
others v. Alok Kumar Srivastav and another5, (6) Baijnath
Jha v. Sita Ram and another6 and (7) Anjani Kumar v.
State of Bihar and another7
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused stoutly
argued that the petitioner/accused was not present in the office
(scene of offence) as he attended the meeting for Anantapur -
Amaravati Express Highway at Collector office to buttress the
Alibi filed proceedings:
i) Issued by the Executive Engineer, R & R, A.P.R.D.C.
Division, Kurnool, which shows that seven meetings were
conducted in Collectorate, Kurnool, in the presence of the
District Collector, Joint Collector, regarding Anantapur -
1 2023LawSuit (SC) 713
2 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4822
3 2022 SCC OnLine Jhar 1261
4 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 14072
5 (2009) 9 SCC 682
6 (2008) 8 SCC 77
7 (2008) 5 SCC 248
Amaravati access control and Green Field Express Way
from 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2017,
ii) and also filed an endorsement dated 23.06.2018, issued
by the Special Deputy Collector's Office on Anantapur -
Amaravati Express Highway. As per the endorsement of
the Special Deputy Collector, seven meetings were
conducted for the Anantapur - Amaravati Express
Highway from 06.02.2017 to 08.05.2017 as under:
Sl.No. Dates of meeting
1. 06.02.2017
2. 27.03.2017
3. 03.04.2017
4. 10.04.2017
5. 24.04.2017
6. 01.05.2017
7. 08.05.2017
9. As seen from the proceedings of the Deputy Collector, no
meeting was held on 30.05.2017, where the alleged incident
was taken place and as alleged by the 1st
respondent/complainant. The police have toiled to save the
petitioner/ accused stating that the petitioner/accused was not
present in the office on the date of alleged incident took place
and filed a final report, which is a false report. The
endorsement of the Special Deputy Collector dated 05.10.2018
falsifies the final report of the police as on the date of alleged
incident, no meeting was held for Anantapur - Amaravati
Express Highway. It is very unfortunate to state that the police
in collusion with the petitioner/ accused, has filed the final
report falsely stating that the petitioner/accused was attended
a meeting of Anantapur - Amaravati Express Highway.
10. As seen from the record, an enquiry was conducted by
Special Deputy Collector (L.A) H.N.S.S. Unit III, Kurnool and
submitted report to the Collector, Kurnool, vide proceedings
Rc.C/3/2017, dated 14.07.2018. In the said enquiry a
statement made by the petitioner/accused that he was
attended to the meeting and returned to the office on
30.05.2017 alleged date of incident he proceeded to the
Tahsildar Office, Rudravaram for preparing reports on Deepam
connections etc., at about 4.00 P.M. It shows that the
Petitioner/accused was present in the office on the date of
alleged incident. And even according to the report lodged by
the police and protest petition, it was categorically stated that
the incident was happened after 4.00P.M. Therefore, the
contention raised by the petitioner that he was not in the office
on the date of alleged incident is false. It is only invented for
the purpose of filing the present Criminal Petition.
11. It is also the contention of the petitioner/accused herein
that the respondent/complainant and her husband attended
the office of the Tahsildar, Rudravaram on 08.05.2017 and
made a galata, for which the Village Revenue Officer has lodged
a report to the police, therefore, in vendetta/wreaking
vengeance, the present complaint is filed. Therefore it is urged
to quash the proceedings.
12. As seen from the material filed by the petitioner/accused,
the alleged incident took place on 08.05.2017 and report was
lodged to the police on 31.05.2017 and the alleged incident is
misbehaving by the petitioner/accused with the respondent/
complainant, took place on 30.05.2017 and on subsequent day
the report was lodged to the police. This shows that the report
filed by the Village Revenue Officer against the
petitioner/accused is as a defence to the alleged incident
against the complainant.
13. It is also the further contention of the petitioner/accused
herein that there is a delay in lodging the report and it shows
that a false complaint was lodged against the
petitioner/accused. The delay is not a ground to quash the
proceedings and the same can be explained during the course
of trial.
14. The above discussion in the order explicit that all the
pleas taken by the petitioner/accused herein, to quash the
proceedings, are not tenable and invented for the purpose of
this case or for defence. As per the endorsement of the Special
Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, no meeting was held on the
date of alleged incident i.e. on 30.05.2017, all the seven
meetings were held except on the date of incident.
15. Fulminating the contentions raised by the petitioner
herein the respondent counsel strongly opposed the case of the
petitioner, stating that all the proceedings preferred by the
petitioner counsel would categorically speaks that no meeting
was held for Anantapur - Amaravati Express Highway on the
date of alleged incident and he would pray to dismiss the
Criminal Petition. He relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar and others v. Madan Lal
Kapoor8, for the proposition that
"29. The issue being examined in the instant case is
the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the
8 (2013) 3 SCC 330
prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing
process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the
stage of framing of charges. These are all stages
before the commencement of the actual trial. The
same parameters would naturally be available for later
stages as well. The power vested in the High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to
hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences
inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution's/
complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/
complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination
must always be rendered with caution, care and
circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be
fully satisfied that the material produced by the
accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that
his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and
indubitable facts; the material produced is such as
would rule out and displace the assertions contained
in the charges leveled against the accused; and the
material produced is such as would clearly reject and
overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the
accusations leveled by the prosecution/ complainant.
16. The Judgments relied by the petitioner, of Calcutta High
Court are not relating to the Alibi and the judgment in Amod
Kumar Kanth v. Association of Victim of Uphaar Tragedy and anr
(supra 1) relating to sanction. Sanction is required only when
the act done by the petitioner/accused in discharging of his
duties connected to the alleged incident. In the present case,
the alleged incident is not connected with the discharging of
duties. Therefore, the judgment relied is not applicable to the
present facts of the case.
17. The Judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Anjani Kumar's
case (supra 7), Baijnath Jha's case (supra 6) and M.N. Ojha and
others case (supra 5), which are relied by the counsel for the
petitioner, wherein the proposition that laid in the said
judgments are that the complaint filed against the government
official as a counterblast to action taken by him in his official
capacity would be a ground to quash the proceedings and that
in any criminal proceedings and vague assertions due to private
and personal grudge is filed, is a ground to quash the
proceedings. The facts of that judgment are not applicable to
the present facts of the case.
18. As seen from the facts in the case on hand there is no
vengeance against the petitioner accused herein for the reason
that the alleged incident that took place in the office of the
Tahsildar, Rudravaram on 08.05.2017 and a complaint was
lodged on 31.05.2017 on the date of the alleged
incident/offence committed by the petitioner accused herein
against respondent/complainant i.e. on 30.05.2017 and a
report was lodged subsequent to the date of alleged incident.
Therefore, all these judgments relied by the counsel for the
petitioner would not applicable basing upon the facts in the
present case.
19. Having considered the rivalry submissions made by the
both the counsel and taking into consideration the material
filed by the petitioner counsel, the allegation prima facie
constitutes an offence under Sections 354 A and 506 of the
IPC, as such the entire proceedings cannot be quashed.
20. So far as the plea of Alibi which has been raised by
learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, this Court in a
proceeding under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code
cannot look into, as it is best left to the learned trial court to
consider the said aspect.
21. As seen from the contents and allegations of the
complainant, it appears that there is a sound suspicion against
the petitioner of being involved in the alleged incident and the
prima facie involvement of the petitioner in connection of the
offence is apparent.
22. This Court in proceedings under Section 482 of Criminal
procedure Code cannot weigh the evidence. Since, the prima
facie case appears to be assumed showing involvement of the
petitioner. This Court is inclined not to entertain the
application which is accordingly dismissed. However, the Court
below is directed to conduct the trial without taking any
observations made in the present Criminal Petition which was
made only for the disposal of the present Criminal Petition.
23. Accordingly the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The
petitioner is discharging duties as a Tahsildar, therefore, this
Court is inclined to dispense with the presence of the petitioner
before the trial Court, during the course of trial. However, it is
made clear that he shall appear before the Court, when his
presence is required, as per law or as directed by the learned
Magistrate. Mere dispensing the presence of the
petitioner/accused does not mean stay of proceedings.
Therefore, Court below is directed to proceed with the trial.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in
this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
________________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 02.02.2024
HARIN
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO
Crl.P No. 4643 OF 2019
Date: 02-02-2024
Harin
