Telangana High Court
Poreddy Manaswinin Daram Narmadaha vs The State Of Telangana on 26 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1486 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.569 of 2023 on
the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District, registered for the offense
punishable under Sections 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.') and Section 3 of the Prevention
of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act').
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto
complainant, who is Head Constable in Sircilla Police Station,
registered a complaint against the petitioner stating that as
per the instructions of the Inspector of Police to serve 41-A
Cr.P.C. notice to accused No.3 in crime No.100 of 2020, as her
involvement is clearly established in the said crime, accused
No.3 in Crime No.100 of 2020 and her daughter, who is the
petitioner herein, appeared before respondent No.2. As per
the instructions of SHO Sircilla Police Station, respondent
No.2 tried to serve notice to accused No.3 in Crime No.100 of
2020 but she refused to take notice. Later, the petitioner
SKS,J
replied that 'Maa amma meeruiche notice meeda santhakam
cheyyadu' and called and pulled her mother aside, thrown
respondentNo.2 and started capturing video in the mobile and
did not support respondent No.2 to serve the notice. When
respondent No.2 warned her not to use mobile phone in the
premises of Police Station, and tried to took the mobile phone,
the petitioner thrown away respondent No.2 and abused her
in filthy language and caught hold of her hair, Uniform collor
and beat her with hands, as a result, she received injuries.
Therefore, respondent No.2 registered a complaint against the
petitioner in Crime No.156 of 2023, for the offences
punishable under Sections 353, 332 of IPC and Section 3 of
the Act.
3. Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a false
case was registered against the mother of the petitioner in
Crime No.100 of 2020 and she was arrayed as accused No.3
in the said crime. At the time of registration of the said crime
the mother of the petitioner was in USA and she did not
SKS,J
commit any offence. Further, when CI of Police at Sircilla
called the mother of the petitioner and threatened her with
dire consequences to sign on some of the blank papers, she
refused. The CI of Police, colluded with the complainant in
the said crime and after taking bribe from him, obtained
signatures of the mother of the petitioner forcibly. Therefore,
the petitioner questioned the illegal and unlawful activities of
the Police. Hence, the allegations levelled against the
petitioner are baseless, as such, prayed the Court to quash
the proceedings against her.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submitted that the statement of witnesses reveals that the
petitioner abused respondent No.2 in filthy language and
damaged the public property in the Police Station. Since the
allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature,
quashing of the proceedings at this stage, do not arise.
Hence, 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
SKS,J
the complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offence
as alleged by the Police.
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. As seen from the record, it appears that the petitioner
obstructed the official duties of respondent No.2, damaged
public property in the Police Station and abused her in filthy
language. The statement of witnesses also shows that the
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
petitioner is involved in obstructing the duties of respondent
No.2. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that no
offence took place at the scene of offence and it requires full-
fledged trial. Therefore, 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.
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
Date: 26.04.2024
SAI
