Y.B.Shekaram 4 Others vs State Of Telangana, Thro. P.P ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1138 Tel

             THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

                  CRIMINAL PETITION No.5635 of 2017


ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioners-A1 to A5 under Section 482

Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in S.C. No.15 of 2016 on the file of Additional

District Judge for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Khammam District.

2. The case of the petitioners in brief was that the 2nd respondent lodged a

complaint on 23.1.2013 before the Khammam Rural Police Station alleging that

he was a person belonging to SC Community and was doing contract works. He

attended the metal road work at Pulipati Prasad Engineering College at

Ammapalem and an amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs was due to him by the college

authorities. He asked the Joint Secretary of the college several times about the

payment of due amount, but the Joint Secretary was avoiding the payment of the

said amount. Finally on 12.11.2012, he gave a cheque for Rs.6.00 lakhs

pertaining to HDFC Bank. He deposited the cheque for collection and credit in

his account, but there was no balance in the account and the cheque was returned

by the bank authorities. In that issue he filed a cheque bounce case against the

Joint Secretary and issued a lawyer notice to him. The Joint Secretary was

requesting him that he would give the due amount and would take back the

bounced cheque. On 23.1.2013 at about 8:00 PM, the Joint Secretary, Erram

Balendu Sekhar and his wife Sujatha, son Ankit, relatives Kaja Chamundeshwar Dr.GRR,J

Rao and Kumar came to his house in a car and asked him to return the bounced

cheque. When he expressed that after payment of due amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs

only he would return the cheque, Sujatha tried to take the papers from his

pocket. When he resisted her, Sekhar, Sujatha, Ankit, Kaja Chamundeshwar Rao

and Kumar pushed him down, abused him in the name of his caste, kicked him

with legs and bet him with hands indiscriminately. Meanwhile, Ankit took a cool

drink bottle, broke it and came to stab him. When he resisted Ankit, he sustained

injury to his left hand. On his hue and cry, the pedestrians proceeding on a motor

cycle came, on seeing them, all of them fled away in their car. Basing on the

said report, the police registered a case in Crime No.23 of 2013 for the offences

under Sections 143, 148, 324 read with 149 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for

short 'SC & ST Act'). After completing the investigation, police filed charge

sheet against A1 to A5. Cognizance was taken by the II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, registered as PRC No.58 of 2015 and

made over the case to the Additional District Judge for trial of cases under

SC/ST (POA) Act, Khammam District.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for

the 2nd respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

1st respondent.

Dr.GRR,J

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint

was filed at the instance of the brother of the 2nd petitioner, who was running the

college and disputes were pending among the family members with regard to

various issues of the institution. The police after conducting investigation

submitted a final report dated 16.12.2013 and requested the court to close the

case as "false". Before submitting the final report, a report was sent to the DIG

of Police, Warangal Range, who in turn by memo dated 27.11.2013 permitted

the Superintendent of Police, Khammam to refer the case as false. Thereafter,

the SP, Khammam by memo dated 16.12.2013 directed the SDPO to send a copy

of final report along with the copies of FIR and other connected documents for

onward transmission to District Collector, Khammam. The process was

concluded in the year 2013. The petitioners were under the impression that the

matter had been closed. All of a sudden police arrested the petitioners No.1, 2

and 5. Then the petitioners came to know that the police failed to file the final

report before the court. Without verifying the old records, police arrested the

petitioners No.1, 2 and 5.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the

charge sheet was not sustainable under law, when once after the investigation

the police found that it was a false case and permission was granted by DIG and

the same was acted upon by the SP Khammam. The complaint was vague. The Dr.GRR,J

entire allegations were false and without any basis. Even the case filed by the

2nd respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short

'NI Act') for cheque bounce vide CC No.636 of 2013 ended in acquittal on

30.8.2016, the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process

of law and prayed to quash the proceedings in SC No.15 of 2016 on the file of

Additional District Judge for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Khammam

District.

6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent on the other hand submitted

that there were prima facie allegations against the petitioners in the charge sheet

filed by the police, there was no need to obtain the permission of the court for

filing the charge sheet, the petitioners No.1, 2 and 5 were arrested on execution

of NBW's and prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also supported the arguments

of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

8. Perused the record. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners was that police after investigation found that it was a false case. The

learned Senior APP also gave his opinion to refer the case as false in nature. The

basis for filing this case was based on the cheque which was bounced, but the Dr.GRR,J

said cheque bounce case vide CC No.636 of 2013 also ended in acquittal and it

was a vexatious litigation.

9. The legal opinion given by the Senior APP and the correspondence

between the DIG Warangal, SP Khammam and SDPO Khammam are only

internal correspondence between them. No final report was filed by the police

before the court. The police filed the charge sheet before the II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam which was taken cognizance by

the said court and made over to the Special Court for trial of SC & ST cases,

Khammam. The charge sheet prima facie would disclose the allegations which

would constitute the offences under Sections 147, 324 read with 149 IPC and

Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act 1989. It is well settled that the inherent

power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised for quashing the

proceedings where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint or the

charge sheet prima facie would disclose cognizable offences making out the

case against the petitioners-accused. There is no express legal bar to continue the

proceedings. The High Court ordinarily would not embark upon an enquiry

whether the evidence in question was reliable or not or whether on a reasonable

appreciation of it, accusations would not be sustained. That is the function of the

trial court. This court would be circumspect and judicious in exercising the

discretion and would take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration Dr.GRR,J

before quashing the proceedings. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot

be used to short circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The

power should be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare cases as per the

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R P Kapur v. State of Punjab

[AIR 1960 SC 866] and in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1)

335].

10. Hence, this court cannot take into consideration the internal

correspondence between the police authorities and the prosecution wing or the

acquittal of the accused in CC No.636 of 2013 under Section 138 of NI Act as

the basis for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners in SC No.15 of

2016 as they were not having any relevance to the continuation of the

proceedings in the present criminal case.

11. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions

pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J March 11, 2022 KTL