Telangana High Court
Kottapally Ravi , Ravinder vs The State Of Telangana on 15 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6293 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash
the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in
Crime No.307 of 2023 of Bodhan Town Police Station,
Nizamabad District, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 376 (2) (f), 342, 506 and 195(A) read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') and Section 3 read
with 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 (for short 'the Act').
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto
complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Bodhan Town
Police Station, Nizamabad District, against the petitioners
stating that his brother died one year ago prior to filing of the
complaint. His brother is having one wife and one daughter
aged about 14 years. The wife of his brother is suffering from
Tuberculosis disease and she along with her daughter are living
by begging in surrounding houses. One fine day, when the
minor girl going to the house of the petitioners to beg food in the
evening, petitioner No.1, who is the brother of petitioner No.2,
SKS,J
stood in front of his house, called the minor girl, caught hold of
her hands and dragged her into tin shed beside the house of
petitioner No.2. When she started shouting, petitioner No.1
closed her mouth and tied her hands with rope and committed
rape. Petitioner No.2 after hearing the sound of somebody,
threatened the girl and her mother not to disclose the matter to
anybody. When respondent No.2 went to the house of petitioner
No.2 and asked about the acts of petitioner No.1, then petitioner
No.2 threatened him and offered Rs.10,000/- not to disclose the
matter to anybody. Basing on the said complaint, the Police
registered a case in Crime No.307 of 2023 for the offences
punishable under Sections 376 (2) (f), 342, 506 and 195(A) read
with 34 of IPC and Section 3 read with 4 of the Act. Hence, the
present criminal petition.
3. Heard Ms. P. Lalitha Kamesh, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1-State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none
appeared on his behalf.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are the
created story of the prosecution. No offence took place as
SKS,J
alleged by the prosecution and it is only an under pre-
determined abetment from the support of rival political parties.
Police have not collected the CCTV footages and there is a delay
of two days in filing the complaint. As such, prayed the Court
to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submitted that the alleged allegations made against the
petitioners are heinous in nature. Further, in these type of
cases, the delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution. He
further submitted that the investigation is at the initial stage
and the Police have not filed the charge sheet. The Police have
to collect the CCTV footage. At this stage, it cannot be decided
that the allegations against the petitioners are vague. As such,
prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the
learned counsel and having gone through the material available
on record, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in the
complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offence as
alleged by the Police.
SKS,J
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
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. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioners
are that the petitioner No.1 committed rape of the girl, who is a
minor, threatened petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 not to
reveal anything to anybody and offered money. Learned counsel
for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.2 is the ward
councillor and due to the political rivalries only a false case was
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
foisted against them. However, the victim is a minor girl and
since there are allegations against the petitioners, which require
trial, at this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations are
baseless.
9. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya
Pradesh (supra), this Court does not find any merit in the
criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner
and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_____________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 15.04.2024
SAI
