U.V. Suresh Kumar vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 2316 Tel

  THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

       CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9867 OF 2021

ORDER:

Heard learned party-in-person, learned Public

Prosecutor, and of Sri V. Yadu Krishna Sainath,

learned Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent.

2. This petition is filed under section 482 of

Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the docket

proceedings dt.13.03.2018 vide USR No.1717 of 2018

passed by the learned XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate at

Hayathnagar. During the pendency of the said

criminal petition, the petitioner herein filed I.A. No.1 of

2022 seeking permission to amend the main prayer to

quash the proceedings in C.C. No.994 of 2020 instead

of above said docket proceedings on the ground that

the Investigating Officer has already laid charge sheet

in Crime No.340 of 2018. This Court vide order dated

01.02.2022 ordered the said application. Thus, the

present petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

C.C.No.994 of 2020 pending on the file of XXIV

Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar.

3. The petitioner herein is A-1 in the said C.C.

No.994 of 2020. The offences alleged against him are

under sections 406, 418, 420, 424, 427, 465, 468,

471, 379, 411, 506 of IPC. A perusal of the record

would reveal that the 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant had filed a petition under Section 200

Cr.P.C., and the learned Magistrate had referred the

same to Police Station, Vanasthalipuram, under

section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, who in

turn registered a case in Crime No.340 of 2018 against

the petitioner herein, A2 and A3 for the aforesaid

offences. On completion of investigation, the

Investigating Officer had laid charge sheet against the

accused. The same was taken on file as C.C.No.994 of

2020.

Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

4. It is relevant to note that during the course

of investigation, the Investigating Officer had recorded

the statements of 2nd respondent/de facto complainant

as LW.1, eyewitness as LW.5, circumstantial witnesses

as LWs 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 to 10. On consideration of

the statements recorded under Section 161 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, the Investigating Officer had laid

charge sheet against the petitioner herein.

5. As per the charge sheet, the allegations

levelled against the petitioner herein and other accused

are as follows:

One A. Vasudeva Reddy, Head Constable, Police

Station Vanasthalipuram, introduced LW.1, junior

Advocate, to petitioner/A-1, a practicing Advocate.

Later, A-1 requested LW.1 to join in his office as a

junior. After sometime, LW.1 requested his friend

LW.7 to join the office of A-1 as junior. Accordingly,

both LW.1 and LW.7 joined in the office of A-1. After

sometime, A-1 informed both LW.1 and LW.7 to Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

introduce their friends, who are in need of money, so

that A-1 will give them money on payment of interest.

Accordingly, LW.1 introduced his friend LW.6, who is

in need of money. A-1 has lent an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- to LW.6 on payment of interest @ Rs.3/-

per month. A-1 has obtained blank signed cheques,

promissory notes, etc., as security from LW.6.

5.1 LW.1 and LW.7 came to know that A-1 has

been deceiving, blackmailing and threatening his

clients and debtors by filing false cases against them.

A-1 did not spare his friends also and A-1 did not allow

LWs 1 and 7 to concentrate on their practice and

profession. A-1 had used both LWs 1 and 7 for

collecting interest amounts from his debtors. He has

not allowed them to open the file, prepare notes and

also arguments etc., Due to the said behaviour of A-1,

LW.1 lost interest in the legal profession. Both LWs. 1

and 7 decided to leave office of A-1. They have

informed him accordingly. A-1 bore grudge against Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

LW.1 and hatched a plan with an ill-intention to trap

LW.1. With the said intention, on 17.10.2016 at about

8.00 a.m., A-1 requested LW.1 over phone to send two

wheeler vehicle i.e. Suziki Access bearing No.AP-BR-

6675, which is standing on the name of his mother,

LW.2, along with water can filled with mineral water on

the ground that A-1's car got punctured, there is no

time to him to get water can as he wants to reach the

Court during call work time. In fact, LW.1 expressed

his inability to get water can since he was going to his

native place. Therefore, he has instructed LW.3 to go

to the house of A-1, and also LW.4, office boy of A-1, to

show the house of A-1 to his brother LW.3.

Accordingly, LW.4 took LW.3 to the house of A1 on the

said motorcycle, who in turn received the said water

can. A-1 requested LW.3 to keep the above said motor

bike in his house for temporary use because his car

got punctured, LW.3 refused to keep the vehicle.

Then, A-1 called LW.1 and requested him to keep the Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

said vehicle on the ground A-1 is not in a position to go

out. LW.1 obeyed his request, and he has instructed

LW.3 accordingly. LW.3 left the above said vehicle

along with original documents such as R.C., Insurance

papers, one partly filled cheque and promissory note

given by LW.1's client Goverdhan Reddy for issuance of

legal notice to one B. Srinivasulu.

5.2 LW.3 specifically informed A-1 at the time of

giving vehicle that some partly filled client documents

were in the vehicle and A-1 assured LW.3 to return the

vehicle along with said document safely to LW.1.

Later, when LW.1 asked A-1 to return the vehicle, A-1

postponed the same and did not return the above said

vehicle and also the documents belonging to the client

of LW.1. The insurance period of the said vehicle is

going to be completed, the Insurance Company i.e.

Bajaj Allianz issued a letter of reminder to LW.2 on

22.03.2017 request to renew the insurance policy.

Then LW.1 requested A-1 to return vehicle and Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

documents. A-1 instead of returning the vehicle,

promised the LW.1 that he will pay the insurance

amount and get the policy renewed as his

compensation to use. Believing his words, LW.1 sent

Aadhar card of his mother through his Whatsapp

No.9848053580 to enable A-1 for getting the insurance

policy renewed on his mother's name. But, no such

insurance policy was taken by A-1 to the motorcycle

mentioned above, but in turn A-1 with an intention to

cheat, handed over the vehicle to A-2.

5.3 LW.1 on coming to know the same,

questioned A-1, for which, A-2 informed LW.1 that his

friend LW.6 did not return the said amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- to A-1, they will return the vehicle only

after LW.6 repaying the entire amount. LW.1 met

LW.6, LW.6 paid the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in the

month of June, 2017 in the present of LW.4, and

requested A-1 to return the vehicle but A-1 specifically Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

informed that he will return the vehicle on receipt of

balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. He has not issued

any receipt towards the payment of the above said

amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. After sometime, LW.1 on his

routine check-up of e-challans on the said motorcycle,

he found e-challan of Rs.135/- is due on the said

vehicle. He has paid the same and also noticed that

the vehicle was in front of SRK Foods Pvt. Ltd.,

Bonguluru and A3 was with the said vehicle. On

enquiry, A-3 informed that A-1 has handed over the

said vehicle and LW.1 tried to narrate how it went to

the custody of A-1, but A-3 stated that he is aware of

entire episode. Thereafter, on 19.08.2017 LW.1 came

to know through online enquiry with RTA that the

subject vehicle was transferred in the name of LW.10,

owner of SRK Foods Pvt. Ltd., to whom A-1 is also a

legal advisor and also with whom A-3 is working. On

enquiry with LW.10, he informed that A-1 has forced

him to purchase the said vehicle stating that it is his Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

sister's bike and A-1 brought the concerned

documents i.e. Forms 29 & 30 stating that his sister

has signed on those documents and transferred the

vehicle in favour of LW.10 by taking the print of

Aadhar Card of LW.2 dsent by LW.1 for renewal of

policy and also forged the signatures of LW.2 on the

concerned forms. Thus, he has transferred to LW.10

causing wrongful loss to LWs 1 and 2 for his monetary

benefits with an intention to cheat and with active

collusion of A2 and A3. Thus, A2 and A3 have

committed the aforesaid offences.

6. Sri U.V. Suresh Kumar, learned party-in-

person, would submit that the 2nd respondent has filed

a complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal

Procedure and learned Magistrate has referred the

same to the Police Station, Vanasthalipura, under

Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, which is

in gross violation of entire procedure laid down under

Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

complaint filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, it is mentioned by 2nd respondent that he

has made a written complaint to the Station House

Officer, Police Station, Vanasthalipuram, on

20.08.2017 for taking necessary action, but they have

not initiated any action for the reasons best known to

them. He has also filed said copy of complaint under

Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure. There is

no mention in the said complaint filed under Section

200 of Code of Criminal Procedure about the other

steps to be followed under section 156 of Code of

Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the learned

Magistrate without considering the said aspects,

referred the said complaint to Police Station,

Vanasthalipuram under Section 156(3) of Code of

Criminal Procedure. Thus, the entire procedure is

violated. In the complaint filed under Section 200 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, it is also mentioned by the

2nd respondent that since Station House Officer, Police Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

Station Vanasthalipuram, has not acted upon his

complaint, the same was represented to Assistant

Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram, on

25.08.2017 and Deputy Commissioner of Police, LB

Nagar Zone, on 25.08.2017 itself. The complaint was

also given to Commissioner of Police on 28.08.2017

and also the Home Minister, which was referred to

Deputy Commissioner of Police, L.B. Nagar Zone, on

29.08.2017. Thus, the 2nd respondent has not followed

the procedure laid down under Section 154 of Code of

Criminal Procedure and learned Magistrate without

considering the same, referred the complaint to Station

House Officer, Police Station, Vanasthalipuram, who in

turn registered the same crime. The said procedure is

also violated by the learned Magistrate, and he relied

upon the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court

reported in AIR 2008 SC 907.

Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

6.1 He would further submit that he filed a

complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal

Procedure and the learned Magistrate has referred the

same to the very same Police Station,

Vanasthalipuram, who in turn registered a case in

Crime No. 802 of 2016. On completion of

investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid charge

sheet against the de facto complainant and another for

the offence under Section 379 IPC.

6.2 He would further submit that he has filed

another complaint under Section 200 of Code of

Criminal Procedure and learned Magistrate has

referred the same under Section 156(3) of Code of

Criminal Procedure to Police Station Vanasthalipuram,

who in turn registered a case in Crime No.636 of 2017

against the 2nd respondent and others for the offences

under Sections 420, 468, 471, 379, 506,, 182, 191,

211 r/w Section 32 of IPC. On completion of

investigation, the Investigating Officer has closed the Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

same referring the same as lack of evidence.

Therefore, the petitioner herein had filed a protest

petition and the same is posted for consideration.

7. According to the learned party-in-person,

the 2nd respondent is his junior, who committed theft

of his vehicle, as a counter blast to the complaint

registered against him; he has implicated the petitioner

herein in the above said false case. The contents of the

charge sheet lack ingredients of offences alleged

against him. The 2nd respondent has implicated A-2,

his brother-in-law, and A-3, an employee of LW.10. He

would further submit that the Investigating Officer in

Crime No.340 of 2018 has not conducted investigation

properly and he has laid charge sheet against the

petitioner herein and other accused, and the

Investigating Officer has not conducted investigation in

Crime No.802 of 2016 in which the petitioner herein is

a complainant. Therefore, the said fact was brought to

the notice of higher ups i.e. Commissioner of Police, Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram

etc.,

8. The petitioner herein has also filed W.P. No.

21860 of 2016 against the 2nd respondent,

Investigating Officer etc., seeking to issue Writ, order,

or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ

of Certiorari Calling for Records in Connection with

Charge Sheet dated 02.10.2020 vide C.C.No.994 of

2020 of Police Station Vanasthalipuram declaring the

investigation conducted by the Respondent No.4 in the

said matter as defective, perfunctory, arbitrary, illegal,

violative of the provisions of Code of Criminal

Procedure, and consequently direct the respondent

No.3 to submit a report on petitioner's complaint dated

16.02.2021 by furnishing the details of action taken if

any by the respondent no. 2 on the said report

submitted by the respondent no. 3 against respondent

no. 4. In the said writ petition, the Assistant

Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram had filed Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

counter stating that on the complaint received by the

petitioner herein, the 2nd respondent requested the 3rd

respondent to conduct enquiry and for taking

necessary action. Accordingly, respondent No.3 has

conducted enquiry into the matter and reported the

matter to 2nd respondent. the 2nd respondent on

examination of the said report and enquiry, revealed

that the Investigating Officer i.e. K. Venkat Reddy, S.I.

of Police, Police Station Vanasthalipuram, being

Investigating Officer, did not conduct investigation

properly in Crime No.340 of 2018 for the aforesaid

offences, which clearly shows his gross negligence and

dereliction towards investigation. It was further

revealed that the Investigating Officer without

collecting proper evidence in Crime No.340 of 2018,

filed charge sheet without application of mind and

caused embarrassment and mental agony to the

innocents by falsely implicating them while

investigating the case, which is highly objectionable Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

causing violation of Rule 3( 1 to 3) of TCS Conduct

Rules 1964. In the said counter it is further stated

that the Investigating Officer has not conducted

investigation to prove the accusation against the

accused persons in Crime No.340 of 2018 beyond all

reasonable doubt. As such, the Commissioner of

Police, framed charges against the S.I. of Police, P.S.

Vanasthalipuram/Investigating Officer. With the said

submissions, he sought quash proceedings in C.C.

No.994 of 2020.

9. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor on

instructions would submit that prima facie there are

serious allegations against the petitioner herein and

other accused. The same constitute offences alleged

against the petitioner herein. The defences taken by

the petitioner cannot be considered in a petition under

section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the

petitioner has to take the said defences before the trial Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

Court during trial. It is for the trial Court to consider

the same.

10. Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent also would submit that there are specific

allegations against the petitioner herein. In the

present proceedings the petitioner has to face the trial

and prove his innocence instead of proving the same,

the petitioner herein has filed the present petition to

quash the C.C. No.994 of 2020.

11. In view of the above said submissions, it is

relevant to note that there is no dispute that the

petitioner herein is a practicing advocate. The 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant/LW.1 is his junior

colleague. LW.7 is also a junior colleague. LW.4 is a

clerk working in the office of A-1/petitioner herein.

Prima facie there are specific allegations against the

petitioner herein. He has requested LW.1 and LW.7 to

introduce their friends who are in need of money.

Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

Accordingly, LW.1 has introduced LW.6, who was in

need of money. A-1 has given hand loan of

Rs.3,00,000/- on interest @ Rs.3/- per month. He has

also obtained a blank signed cheque, promissory note

etc., LW.6 has not repaid the said amount to petitioner

herein. Therefore, according to the prosecution, since

LW.1 has introduced LW.6, he has tried to bring

pressure on LW.1 so that LW.6 will repay the said

amount. However, LW.6, has paid an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/-.

12. According to LW.1, the petitioner herein has

requested him to send water can on his motorcycle.

Since LW.1 was pre-occupied, he has requested his

brother LW.3 to send water can on his motorcycle.

The said version of LWs 1 and 3 was corroborated with

the version of LW.4, office clerk of A-1. LW.3 has

taken the said water can on the above said motorcycle

which is in the name of his mother i.e. LW.2 and Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

handed over the same to the petitioner herein. The

Investigating Officer has also recorded the statements

of the above said witnesses. There is specific allegation

against the petitioner herein that he has not returned

the said above said vehicle. On the other hand, he has

transferred the vehicle in the name of LW.10 by forging

the signature of LW.2. The manner in which he has

obtained Aadhar card is also specifically mentioned.

The mobile number through which Aadhar card

obtained was also specifically mentioned. The

Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of B.

Suresh Kumar, client of LW.1, as LW.9 and also

LW.10, the owner of SRK Foods Pvt. Ltd., Bonguluru,

on whose name the said vehicle was transferred.

13. Thus, prima facie there are specific

allegations against the petitioner herein. Therefore,

the defence taken by the petitioner cannot be

considered in a petition filed under Section 482 of Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

Code of Criminal Procedure. The said principle was

also held by the Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji

Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra1, wherein

the Apex Court has categorically held that quashing

criminal proceedings was called for only in a case

where complaint did not disclose any offence, or was

frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations set

out in complaint did not constitute offence of which

cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open

to the High Court to quash the same. It was not

necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should

be done before trial to find out whether the case would

end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a

reading of the complaint and consideration of

allegations therein, in light of the statement made on

oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed,

there would be no justification for the High Court to

interfere. The defences that might be available, or

. AIR 2019 SC 847 Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

facts/aspects which when established during trial,

might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing

a complaint at the threshold. At that stage, the only

relevant question was whether averments in the

complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or

not. The Court has to consider whether complaint

discloses any prima facie offences that were alleged

against the respondents. Correctness or otherwise of

the said allegations has to be decided only during trial.

At the initial stage of issuance of process, it was not

open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into

merits of the contentions made on behalf of the

accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed

only on the ground that, allegations made therein

appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence

alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in

complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.

14. In view of the same, the above said

contentions of learned party-in-person are not Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

sustainable. He has placed reliance on the principle

laid down in a judgment reported in (2019)14 Supreme

Court Cases 207 in Vikram Johar Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh and another. It is a case where the Hon'ble

Apex Court has considered the scope and ambit of

discharge application and on examination of facts

therein, the Apex Court held that prosecution of a

Surveyor of an Insurance Company for having given an

adverse report against the complainant is an abuse of

process of Court. Therefore, the facts in the said case

are different from the facts in the present case. He has

placed reliance on the principle laid down in a

judgment reported in Criminal Petition No.5745 of

2010 dt. 14.09.2012. Wherein this Court considered

the scope and ambit of powers of High Court under

Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and on

examination of said facts of the case, the Court has

quashed the proceedings in C.C. therein against the Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

petitioner therein. Whereas in the present case, the

facts are different to the facts of the said case.

15. As discussed supra, there are prima facie

specific allegations against the petitioner herein. The

petitioner herein is a practicing advocate, senior to

LW.1 and LW.7, and requested LW.1 his junior

colleague to get water can on his two wheeler on the

ground that his car got punctured. The said statement

of LW.1 is supported by LW.3, brother of LW.1 and

also LW.4 office clerk of petitioner herein/A1. Legal

profession is a noble profession. The petitioner being a

senior to LW.1, cannot instruct or request his junior

colleague to get water can on his vehicle. However, he

has requested LW.1 to get water can; expressing his

inability, LW.1 requested LW.3, his brother, to take

water can on the above said vehicle. The manner in

which vehicle was kept with the petitioner herein/A1,

obtaining of Aadhar card of LW.2 and transferring the

said vehicle in favour of LW.10 is also specifically Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

mentioned. The modus operandi adopted by the

petitioner herein is also specifically mentioned.

16. It is also relevant to note that there is specific

allegation against the petitioner about his practice of

lending money to clients on interest and he is using

his colleagues including LW.1 and LW.7 for the said

purpose and also collecting interest. There is also

specific allegation against the petitioner herein that he

has been filing cases against his clients, debtors etc.,

The petitioner herein had filed a petition under Section

482 of Code of Criminal Procedure vide Criminal

Petition No.1871 of 2021 seeking to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.1019 of 2020 of Police Station

Vanasthalipuram. In the said C.C., the allegation

against the petition herein is that, he has lent an

amount of Rs.50,00,000/- by obtaining immovable

property as surety and by way of execution of AGPA

and registered sale deed.

Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

17. In view of the above said discussion, since

the allegation levelled against the petitioner herein are

specific and the same constitute the above said

offences against the petitioner herein, this Court is not

inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.994 of

2020 against the petitioner herein. The defence taken

by the petitioner herein cannot be considered in a

petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure.

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Skoda Auto

Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of

Uttar Pradesh2, the Apex Court referring to the earlier

judgments rendered by it has categorically held that

the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers

under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the

proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases

with extreme caution. Viewed from any angle, this

petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

. AIR 2021 SC 931 Crl. P. No.9867 of 2021

19. In the result, the Criminal Petition is

dismissed.

20. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, pending

if any in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 06.06.2022

BDR