Telangana High Court
Smt. D.Surya Prabha vs State Of Telangana on 22 September, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.8981 OF 2021
Between:
Smt.D.Surya Prabha& 7 Ors ... Petitioners/Accused 1-8
And
1.The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor
High Court at Hyderabad and another ... Respondent/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED :22.09.2023
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
Wish to see their fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER,
J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 8981 of 2021
% Dated 22.09.2023
# Smt.D.Surya Prabha & 7 Ors ... Petitioners/Accused 1-8
And
$ 1.The State of Telangana,
Rep by Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Hyderabad and another ... Respondent/Complainant
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M/S Indus Law Firm
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor for R1
Sri PNJ Surya Tej for R2
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
11992 AIR 604
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8981 OF 2021
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 to A8 to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.9406 of 2021 on the file of III
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. The 2nd respondent filed a private complaint before the III
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which was
referred to the police for the purpose of investigation and registered
as Crime No.211 of 2021 on 09.03.2021 for the offences under
Sections 379, 447, 506, 341, 342, 120-B r/w 34 of IPC and Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C.
3. The allegation in the complaint is that A1 is the wife, A2 is
the son and other petitioners are relatives and friends of defacto
complainant. It is alleged in the complaint that the defacto
complainant is the Managing Director of Anjana Explosives
Limited. A3, A6 to A9 were interfering with the personal life of the
complainant and threatened him. A1 and A2, who are wife and son
used to fight with him and threaten him.
4. On 10.03.2019, A6 to A9 held meeting at Kakinada and
threatened the defacto complainant to transfer properties standing
in his name in favour of A1 and A2, failing which he has to face
dire consequences. At the instance of A6 to A9, A1 to A3 committed
theft of property documents of the complainant. A3 made duplicate
keys of the office main door with an intention to commit theft of the
valuable documents of M/s.Anjana Explosives Limited.
Accordingly, on 24.05.2019 using duplicate keys, office premises
was opened and committed theft of; i) agreement with different
purchasers and customers of the company; ii) cheques issued by
purchasers, customers of company towards security for the credit
supplies; iii) personal property documents; iv) land papers/land
allotment papers issued by the Government of Telangana in favour
of Anjana Explosives and Rs.18.00 lakhs cash. Having committed
theft, they went away locking the premises. He had faced problems
on account of the documents being taken away by the wife and
others. He incurred nearly loss of Rs.10.00 Crores on account of
the acts of these petitioners.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the complaint is filed with a delay of nearly one year and ten
months. No reasons are stated in the complaint regarding the
delay. Due to family disputes, false complaint was filed by
implicating all the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the 2nd
respondent that these are all questions of trial which can be
decided by the trial Court. The CCTV footage was available which
was handed over to the police and is part of evidence. Accordingly,
petition has to be dismissed.
7. As seen from the record, the alleged incident happened on
25.04.2019. Private complaint was filed on 04.01.2021. Admittedly,
no seizures were affected from any of the petitioners. The list of
witnesses is the complainant himself and two of his other
employees. There is no investigation as to how the petitioners i.e.,
A1 and A3 have entered into the premises. No investigation is done
to show that a duplicate key was made for the purpose of entering
into the premises.
8. The entire investigation is based on the complaint made and
charge sheet is also filed on the basis of the statement of
complainant. There is no explanation as to why there is a delay of
one year and eight months. Admittedly, A1 is the wife and A2 is the
son of the defacto complainant. There are family disputes regarding
properties. In the back ground of the said disputes and the
inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, false implication is
apparent. To attract an offence of theft, immovable property should
have been removed without the consent of the complaint. Though
the complainant claims that several documents, cheques were
missing, nothing was seized from the petitioners. Specific details of
documents are not given but vaguely stated that several property
documents and other business documents were seized. No
witnesses are examined, who are parties to the alleged documents
subjected to theft, to speak about them.
The question of restraining or threatening the complainant
does not arise, to attract the offences under sections 341 and 506
IPC. Except stating that the petitioners have threatened with dire
consequences, utterances made is not mentioned. Further, the
alleged threatening was on 10.03.2019.
9. On account of the inordinate unexplained delay in lodging the
complaint and in the back ground of the property disputes among
the family members, this Court deems it appropriate to quash all
further proceedings when none of the ingredients of any of the
provisions are made out.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana
and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others (1992 AIR 604), had
enunciated the principles for use of the extraordinary power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein it is held as
follows:
"(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal knowledge."
11. In the result, the proceedings against petitioners in
C.C.No.9406 of 2021 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently,
miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 22.09.2023
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8981 OF 2021
Dt. 22.09.2023
kvs
