Telangana High Court
Daravath Srinu vs The State Of Telangana on 4 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7329 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the
proceedings against them in Crime No.249 of 2023 of
Narsampet Police Station, Warangal District, for the alleged
offences punishable under Sections 353, 290 read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the de facto
complainant - Bojja Ravinder, SI of Police, Narsampet Police
Station, Warangal District, who is respondent No.2 herein, filed
a complaint stating that on 30.07.2023 at about 17:00 hours
he went near the toll gate at the outskirts of Muthojipet Village
of Narsampet Mandal, along with his staff for the purpose of
investigating the crime registered vide Crime No.247/2023 for
offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 290, 506 read
with Section 34 of the IPC before the Narsampet Police Station.
While they were inspecting the crime vehicle i.e., Eicher-480
tractor, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and some other
persons came to them and started abusing them in filthy
SKS,J
language resulting in deterring the respondent No.2 and his
staff from discharging their legitimate and lawful duties, as
such, complaint was filed praying to take necessary action
against the accused persons.
3. Heard Sri Veera Babu Gandu, learned counsel for
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, and Sri S.Ganesh, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 -
State.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that with an
ulterior motive to harass the petitioners, the respondent No.2
has falsely implicated the petitioners as accused Nos.1 to 3 in
Crime No.249 of 2023 for offences punishable under Sections
353, 290 read with 34 of the IPC. He contended that the
allegations raised against the petitioners are absolutely false,
concocted, fabricated and malicious and crime case is filed
against them in order to harass them. He submitted that the
grandfather of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 owned agricultural land
in survey No.98/77/B admeasuring Acs.2.20 guntas situated
at Muthojipeta Village, Narsampet Mandal, Warangal District
and that since several years the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are
cultivating the said agricultural land without any endurance
SKS,J
from any side but thereafter, the respondent NO.2 colluded
with one Vangeti Kishore Kumar and got registered a criminal
case against themvide Crime No.247/2023 for offences
punishable under Sections 447, 427, 290, 506 read with
Section 34 of the IPC with an intention to grab the said
agricultural land.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners asserted that the
respondent NO.2 was continuously harassing the petitioner
Nos.1 and 2 time and again by insisting them to come to Police
Station and later when petitioner No.3 came to know that the
respondent NO.2 has mercilessly beaten petitioner No.1 with
rubber sticks, he sent one of his relatives Ashok to the Police
Station to enquire about petitioner NO.1, and came to know
that petitioner NO.1 is not in Police Station, as such,
immediately the petitioner NO.3 filed a writ of habeas corpus
vide W.P.No.20485 of 2023. He further contended that the
respondent NO.2 has bore grudge on the petitioners due to
previous conflicts, as such, he has falsely implicated the
petitioners in Crime No.249/2023. Therefore, prayed this
Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the
proceedings against the petitioners.
SKS,J
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by learned counsel
for petitioners and stated that the petitioners were arrayed as
accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.249/2023 as they obstructed
the respondent NO.2 who is the Investigating Officer in Crime
No.247/2023 while he was discharging his official duty along
with his staff and was investigating the crime vehicle Eicher-
480 tractor. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the
Criminal Petition.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as
follows:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of
appeal or revision. This Court has, in several
judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used
sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High
Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally
refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case
where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more
so when the evidence has not been collected and
(2012) 10 SCC 155
SKS,J
produced before the Court and the issues involved,
whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and
cannot be seen in their true perspective without
sufficient material."
8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on
going through the material placed on record, it is noted that
while dealing with the petition filed under Section 482 of
C.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration the averments
made in the complaint and the averments recorded in the
statements of the witnesses and if the averments made therein
do not constitute any offence as alleged against the accused
persons, then the proceedings against the accused persons are
liable to be quashed. In the case on hand, there is no other
material placed on record except the complaint filed by
respondent No.2. In such circumstances, the Court is inclined
to consider the averments made in the complaint.
9. The averments of the said complaint would reveal that
the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 obstructed the Police
Officer on duty who is respondent No.2 from discharging his
official duty i.e., the investigation in Crime No.247/2023.
Further, it is also seen that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3
abused the Officers in filthy language and there is no doubt
SKS,J
that the same amounts to abuse of process of law. At this
juncture, it is also significant to note that the investigation in
the case is not yet completed.
10. In view of the above discussion, and as per the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of
Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori (supra) this Court is of
the view that there are no merits in this Criminal Petition and
the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
However, if the petitioners are not served with notice under
Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer is directed to
issue the same and follow the procedure laid down under
Section 41-A Cr.P.C., and also the guidelines formulated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 2
scrupulously. However, the petitioners shall co-operate with
the Investigating Officer as and when required by furnishing
information and documents as sought by him in concluding
the investigation. The petitioners shall file all the documents
which they ought to file to prove that it do not come under the
(2014) 8 SCC 273
SKS,J
criminal offences and the Investigating Officer shall consider
the same before filing appropriate report before the Magistrate.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 04.04.2024
PT
SKS,J
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
P.D.ORDER
IN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7329 of 2023
Date: 04.04.2024
PT
