Siligireddy Janardhan Reddy vs State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 2382 Tel

    THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

           CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9798 OF 2021

ORDER:

Heard Sri Vimal Varma Vasireddy, learned Counsel

for the petitioner. Mr. B. Krishna, learned Counsel for the

2nd respondent, and learned Public Prosecutor.

2. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in

S.C.No.1094 of 2019 pending on the file of District &

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

3. The petitioner herein is A-14. Offences alleged

against the petitioner herein are under sections 212, 302

and 109 of IPC.

[

4. As per the charge sheet, the allegations levelled

against the petitioner herein/A-14 are that, he is resident

of Boduppal and working as an advocate clerk. He knows

A-1 since last 10 years and he is guiding A-1 in all issues

relating to Court and other matters. A case in Crime

No.844 of 2018 was registered against A-1 in Police Station

Medipally, for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 509,

504, 448, r/w 34 IPC, on 03.11.2018. Thereafter, A-1

requested A-14 to file a writ petition challenging the said

crime through an Advocate. Accordingly, the petitioner

herein filed a writ petition through a Lawyer. A-1 informed

A-14 that he is facing financial crisis in his Login Media

business, and investors which include deceased and others

have been forcing A-1 to clear off the liabilities.

4.1 On 21.11.2018, after the incident, A-1

telephonically spoke to the petitioner/A14 expressing his

desire to surrender to police, who suggested him to hide.

After the incident, A-1 informed his every movement to the

petitioner/A-14 about killing of deceased. CDR details

furnished by LW.43 shows the said version between A-1

and A-14 before and after the commission of offence. A-1

proceeded to Chengicherla village by XUV Car and

contacted A-13 over phone and informed him to come

down to Chengicherla, who came along with A-12 by TS

Jupiter TS-070GE-2812. Thus, the petitioner herein along

with A-11 to A-13 and A-15 conspired with A-1 and other

accused and committed the murder of deceased and they

have cooperated A-1 in commission of offence. Therefore,

committed the offences punishable under Sections 212,

302 r/w 109 IPC.

5. Sri Vimal Varma Vasireddy, learned Counsel for

the petitioner would submit that the contents of the charge

sheet lack the ingredients of offences alleged against the

petitioner herein. The petitioner never cooperated with A-

1. There is no specific charge/allegation levelled against the

petitioner herein. The allegations levelled against the

petitioner herein are bald in nature. Even according to the

respondent/police, the petitioner came into picture only

after murder of the deceased. Therefore, the petitioner by

no stretch of imagination can be charged under Section

302 IPC when he had no knowledge of the alleged murder.

To attract charge under Section 212 of IPC, there must be

an offender who has to be harboured. Until and unless A-1

is convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC, he will

not become an offender as he is presently only an accused.

To attract the offence under Section 212 of IPC, it is

necessary to establish the commission of offence,

harbouring or concealing the person known or believed to

be the offender and further such concealment must be with

the intention of screening him from legal punishment. The

same are lacking in the present case. According to him,

the police have implicated the petitioner herein in a false

case. With the said submissions, he sought to quash the

proceedings against the petitioner herein/A14 in S.C. No.

1094 of 2019. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/A-

14 has also relied upon the principle laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of H.P.1;

He also relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Mukesh2; .

He also relied upon the judgment of Madras High

Court reported in S. Dhanavel Vs. State Inspector of

Police3.

6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel

appearing for 2nd respondent, and also Public Prosecutor

on instructions would submit that prima facie there are

specific allegations against the petitioner herein. He has

(1999)2 SCC 288

(2006)13 SCC 197

2012(1)RLR (Criminal) 334

supported A-1 in the commission of offence. Some of the

accused were present in the house of petitioner/A-14.

LW.65 along with LWs 56 and 57 panch witnesses were

proceeded to the house of petitioner/A14 at Buddanagar,

Boduppal and apprehended A-12 to A-15 on 29.11.2018.

They have confessed about the commission of offence along

with other accused. Mobile phone of petitioner/A14 was

also seized. The Investigating Officer recorded the

statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Code of

Criminal Procedure and laid charge sheet against the

petitioner/A14 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 during the course of trial. It is for

the trial Court to consider the same. With the said

submissions, both of them sought to dismiss the present

petition.

7. In view of the above said rival submissions, it is

relevant to note that prima facie there are certain specific

allegations against the petitioner herein. He is resident of

Boduppal. He is working as a clerk in Advocate's office.

He knows A-1 since last 10 years. He is guiding A-1 in all

issues relating to Court and other matters. Even prior to

the incident, he had filed Writ Petition through a Counsel

to quash the proceedings in Crime No.844 of 2018 against

A-1. A-1 also informed about facing financial crisis in his

Login Media business. A-1 has informed A-14 that the

deceased and others were forcing him to clear off the

liabilities. Even on 21.11.2018, A-1 has telephonically

informed the petitioner expressing his desire to surrender

before the police and the petitioner herein suggested A-1 to

hide himself. The Investigating Officer has collected CDR

details. Some of the accused were present in the house of

A-14. Police have arrested the petitioner herein along with

A12, A13 and A15 on 29.11.2018 from the house of the

petitioner herein. Thus, there are specific allegations

against the petitioner herein that he has assisted A-1 in

commission of the offence. The allegations relate to a

heinous offence of murder/rioting/harbouring with

criminal conspiracy by using deadly weapons with hire

killers.

8. It is relevant to note that Section 212 of IPC

deals with harbouring offender. It says that whenever an

offence has been committed, whoever harbours or conceals

a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the

offender, with the intention of screening him from legal

punishment. Therefore to attract the said provision, two

ingredients are essential i.e. commission of offence,

harbouring or concealing a person whom he knows or has

reason to believe to be the offender and such concealing

must be with an intention of screening him from the legal

punishment.

9. As stated supra, in the present case, the

allegation against the petitioner herein is that, he knows A-

1 since last 10 years and he is aware of the disputes

between A-1 and the deceased. On 21.11.2018, after the

incident, A-1 telephonically informed A-14 about his desire

to surrender before the police, but the petitioner/A-14

suggested A-1 to hide himself. The police have arrested

other accused from the house of the petitioner herein on

29.11.2018. The Investigating Officer only after collecting

the call data of the said persons, has laid charge sheet

against the petitioner herein showing him as A-14. The

contents of the charge sheet and the statement of the

witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal

Procedure constitute the above said offence under Section

212 of IPC against the petitioner herein.

10. Section 109 of IPC deals with punishment of

abetment. If the act abetted is committed in consequence of

the abetment, and where no express provision is made for

its punishment. Section 107 of IPC deals with abetment

and states that A person abets the doing of a thing, who--

(First) -- Instigates any person to do that thing; or

(Secondly) --Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

(Thirdly) -- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

The above said discussion would reveal that the same

constitute the above said offence against the petitioner

herein.

11. In Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of H.P., the

Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to examine scope and

ambit of Section 212 of IPC and the ingredients of the said

offence. It held that to attract the provision of Section 212

of IPC, it is necessary to establish the commission of

offence, harbouring or concealing a person whom he knows

or has reason to believe to be the offender and such

concealing must be with an intention of screening him from

the legal punishment. As stated above, there are specific

allegations against the petitioner herein. He has suggested

A-1 to hide himself, and police have arrested some of the

accused from the house of the petitioner herein. He knows

about the disputes between A-1 and the deceased

including the business disputes. Thus, prima facie, the

contents of the charge sheet constitute said offence and

ingredients of Section 212 of IPC are there in the charge

sheet. It is relevant to note that in the said case accused

was convicted, and in the present case the matter is at trial

stage. The petitioner herein has to face the trial and prove

his innocence. The defence taken by him cannot be

considered in a petition filed under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the said principle is not

applicable to the present case.

12. In State of M.P. Vs. Mukesh, the Hon'ble Apex

Court had an occasion to deal with scope and ambit of

abetment under Section 107 of IPC. On examination of the

facts, it was held that "A person, it is trite, abets by aiding,

when by any act done either prior to, or at the time of, the

commission of an act, he intends to facilitate and does in

fact facilitate, the commission thereof would attract the

third clause of Section 107 of the Penal Code. Doing

something for the offender is not abetment. Doing

something with knowledge so as to facilitate him to commit

the crime or otherwise would constitute abetment." It is

also relevant to note that in the said case the accused was

convicted and the matter went to Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Whereas in the present case, the matter is at trial stage. In

the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that doing

something with knowledge so as to facilitate or otherwise

would constitute abetment. As discussed supra, in the

present case prima facie there are specific allegations

against the petitioner herein. Therefore, the facts of the

said case are different from the facts of the present case.

13. In S. Dhanavel Vs. State Inspector of Police,

the Madras High Court on examination of facts of the case

and also Section 212 of IPC held that the requirement to

attract under Section 212 of IPC is that, the person whom

he harbours should be believed to be an offender and the

said character of the person can be proved only when he

has been judicially found to be a person guilty of the

offence charged. In the said case, A-3 introduced A-1, who

informed the petitioner about committing of murder and,

therefore, the police arrayed him as A-4. Whereas in the

present case, there are prima facie specific allegations

against the petitioner herein. Therefore, the facts of the

said case are different from the facts of the present case.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji

Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra4, wherein the

Apex Court has categorically held that quashing criminal

proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint

. AIR 2019 SC 847

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 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.

15. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private

Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh5, 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.

16. In view of the above said discussions, prima

facie there are specific allegations against the petitioner

herein. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.1094 of 2019 against the petitioner

herein.

. AIR 2021 SC 931

17. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

18. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, pending if

any in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 07.06.2022

BDR