A. Revanth Reddy, Hyd vs State Of Telangana Ano
2021 Latest Caselaw 601 Tel

       THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.3653 OF 2015

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), is filed by the

petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings in

C.C.No.81 of 2015 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad City.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, learned

Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State and perused

the record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner-

accused, M.L.A. of Kondagal Constituency, made a paper

statement and press conference on 28.08.2014 at NTR Trust

Bhavan, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, that to win the

General Election, 2014, the Honourable Chief Minister of

Telangana Sri KCR has promised to inflate the cement prices and

that he has also taken Rupees 100 Crores as bribe from private

medical college managements to inflate the fee structure. It is

also the case of the prosecution that the petitioner-accused

made a snatching allegation that an MLA told him that if anyone

intends to give Rupees 100 Crores as bribe, he has to meet

Sri KCR and whoever intends to give Rupees one Crore as bribe,

he has to meet Sri KTR. The petitioner-accused made several

more allegations on Sri KCR accusing him of amassing Crores of

Rupees as bribe and ultimately, the petitioner-accused has Dr.SA,J

committed the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 505

I.P.C. One K.Goverdhan Reddy (LW.1) lodged a complaint under

Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned against the

petitioner-accused. The same was referred to the police under

Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. Basing on the same,

Crime No.1005 of 2014 of Banjara Hills Police Station,

Hyderabad, was registered against the petitioner-accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 504 and 505 I.P.C. After

completion of investigation, final report was filed against the

petitioner-accused for the aforementioned offences before the III

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad City. The

learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the said offences and

numbered the criminal case as C.C.No.81 of 2015.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, firstly, would

submit that the de facto complainant-K. Goverdhan Reddy has

no locus standi to file a complaint against the petitioner-accused.

Secondly, there are no ingredients of Section 505 (2) I.P.C., as

alleged. The requisite permission as required under Section

155 (2) Cr.P.C. has not been obtained by the Investigating

Officer to investigate into the subject crime. Without obtaining

such permission, final report is filed in the subject crime. As

such, it is bad in law for non-compliance of obtaining requisite

permission under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. As there is no

commission of cognizable offence, the petitioner-accused cannot

be proceeded against. Further, there is no mens rea and

ultimately, prayed to quash the proceedings in the subject C.C.

Dr.SA,J

Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, placed reliance

on Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P.1,

K. Nagendra Babu @ Nagendra Rao v. Yathipathi Arun

Kumar2 and Guguloth Jagan v. The State of Telangana3.

5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor

representing the respondent-State would submit that the

allegations made in the F.I.R. constitute the offence punishable

under Section 505 (2) I.P.C., which is a cognizable offence.

Therefore, no permission under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. is

required. The allegations of bribe made by the petitioner-

accused against the Honourable Chief Minister of Telangana Sri

KCR constitute enmity, hatred and ill-will between different

classes of people. In view of the nature of the allegations made

against the petitioner-accused, LW.1 is justified in lodging a

report with the police. No ground is available to the petitioner-

accused to quash the subject proceedings. The allegations made

against the Honourable Chief Minister of Telangana Sri KCR

reflect mens rea on the part of the petitioner-accused. Further,

charges are not yet framed by the trial Court. The trial Court

has to examine the case, frame appropriate charges and then

proceed against the petitioner-accused. In order to prove the

innocence or otherwise of the petitioner-accused, the petitioner-

accused is required to undergo trial in the subject Calendar

Case. Therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings in

(1997) 7 SCC 431

2017 Law Suit (Hyd) 55

Crl.P.No.2894 of 2015 Dr.SA,J

the subject Calendar Case as prayed for. Learned Public

Prosecutor, in support of his submissions, relied on Kedar Nath

Singh v. State of Bihar4, Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v.

Union of India5, Vinod Dua v. Union of India6 and

Ghanshyam Sharma v. Surendar Kumar Sharma7.

6. In view of the above submissions of both the sides, the

point that arises for determination in this Criminal Petition is as

follows:-

"Whether the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.81 of 2015 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad City, are liable to be quashed?"

POINT:-

7. The first contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner-accused is that the respondent No.2 has no locus

standi to file the subject complaint and in support of the said

submission, he placed relied on a decision of this Court in

K. Nagendra Babu's case (2 supra), wherein, a practicing

advocate filed a private complaint against 22 accused for the

offences punishable under Section 500 IPC and under Section 5B

(1) an (2) of Cinematorgraph Act, 1952, against the actors who

acted and performed programme in a T.V. channel insulting and

defaming the legal profession and decorum of the Court

proceedings and this Court, held that the petitioners therein

1962 AIR 955

AIR 2014 SC 1591

W.P. (Criminal) No.154 of 2020 Dr.SA,J

being members of unidentifiable group of advocates, who did not

suffer any injury on account of such slanderous statement, are

incompetent to institute criminal proceedings against the

respondents. In the instant case also, the de facto complainant

is an advocate and he did not suffer any injury on account of the

statements alleged to have been made by the petitioner-accused

through electronic and print media.

8. The second contention of the petitioner-accused is that the

investigation is hit by Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C.

9. Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. reads as under:

"155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases (1) xxxx (2) No police officer shall investigate a non- cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.

(3) xxxx (4) xxxx"

10. In the instant case, the petitioner-accused is being

proceeded with for the offences under Sections 504 and 505

I.P.C. The sum and substance of the allegations made against

the petitioner-accused is that petitioner-accused is an M.L.A. of

Kondagal Constituency. On 28.08.2014, he addressed the

electronic and print media in NTR Trust Bhavan, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad, and stated that the Honourable Chief Minister of

Telangana Sri KCR has taken bribe from the private medical

college managements to inflate the fee structure and that

(Crl.A.No.1838 of 2014) Dr.SA,J

whoever intends to give Rupees 100 Crores as bribe, they have

to meet Sri KCR and that whoever intends to give Rupees one

Crore as bribe, they have to meet Sri KTR and that Sri KCR was

amassing Crores of rupees by way of bribe through medical

colleges. The said allegations made against the sitting Chief

Minister of Telangana State hurt the sentiments of Telangana

State people and the statement is aimed for provoking the

Telangana State people, knowing that it would likely break the

public peace.

11. In Bilal Ahmed Kaloo's case (1 supra), the Honourable

Apex Court at paragraph Nos.12 and 24, held as under:

"12. ... The words "whoever makes, publishes or circulates" used in the setting of Section 505 (2) cannot be interpreted disjunctively but only as supplementary to each other. If it is construed disjunctively, anyone who makes a statement falling within the meaning of Section 505 would, without publication or circulation, be liable to conviction...."

"24. Before parting with this judgment, we wish to observe that the manner in which convictions have been recorded for offences under Sections 153-A, 124-A and 505 (2), has exhibited a very casual approach of the trial court. Let alone the absence of any evidence which may attract the provisions of the sections, as already observed, even the charges framed against the appellant for these offences did not contain the essential ingredients of the offences under the three sections. The appellant strictly speaking should not have been put to trial for those offences. A mechanical order convicting a citizen for offences of such serious nature like sedition and promoting enmity and hatred etc. does harm to the cause. It is expected that the graver the offence, greater should be the care taken so that the liberty of a citizen is not lightly interfered with."

In the aforesaid decision, the Honourable Apex Court, while

dealing with similar circumstances, held that the main Dr.SA,J

ingredients of Section 505 (2) I.P.C. are provoking enmity,

hatred or ill-will between different classes of people. It was also

held that mens rea is also equally necessary to postulate the

offence under Section 505 (2) I.P.C. In the instant case, the

petitioner-accused made allegations against two individuals.

Though one of them was/is Honourable Chief Minister of the

State of Telangana, there is no mention of above referred

ingredients anywhere in the material collected by the

Investigating Officer. Further, from a plain reading of the

alleged statements made by the petitioner-accused, it cannot be

held that those statements, in any case, would create rumors,

promote enmity, hatred or ill-will between two classes of persons

or between different religions, race, language or regional groups

or castes or communities. Viewed from any angle, the alleged

statements made by the petitioner-accused would not fulfill the

requirements under Section 505 (2) I.P.C. Furthermore, there is

no mens rea creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will

between different classes of people. The petitioner-accused is

facing prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections

504 and 505 I.P.C. The Investigating Officer did not classify

whether the offence alleged against the petitioner-accused falls

under Section 505 (2) I.P.C. or not. Even the investigating

officer, in the charge-sheet filed in the subject case, did not

reach to a conclusion that the alleged statements in question

provoked enmity, hatred or ill-will between different class of

people etc. Further, it is not the case of the public prosecutor Dr.SA,J

that the allegations constitute offence under Section 505 (3)

I.P.C. Admittedly, the offence under Section 504 I.P.C. is a non-

cognizable offence and the offence under Section 505 (1) I.P.C.

is also a non-cognizable offence. The offences under Sections

505 (2) and 505 (3) I.P.C. are cognizable offences. The offences

alleged in the instant case are under Sections 504 & 505(1) of

IPC and non-cognizable, permission from the Magistrate under

Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. is required to investigate into such

alleged offences. In the instant case, admittedly, there is no

compliance of Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. Though the private

complaint filed by L.W.1 was referred to the Station House

Officer concerned under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the

Magistrate concerned to investigate into the subject crime, no

permission as required under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. was

obtained by the Investigating Officer before investigating into

the subject crime. In Guguloth Jagan's case (3 supra), this

Court held that the report of the de facto complainant therein

clearly shows the commission of a non-cognizable offence and

hence, the investigation was hit by Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C.

12. With regard to the decisions relied upon by the learned

Public Prosecutor are concerned, the facts and circumstances in

the said cases are different from the facts and circumstances of

the case on hand.

13. Requisite procedure shall be followed to prosecute any

person, and justice shall always be in accordance with law. In Dr.SA,J

view of the observations and findings recorded above, the

proceedings in C.C.No.81 of 2015 on the file of III Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad City, pending against

the petitioner-accused are liable to be quashed.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the

proceedings in C.C.No.81 of 2015 on the file of III Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad City, pending against

the petitioner-accused are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal

Petition shall stand closed.

______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J February 26, 2021.

MD/Bvv