Telangana High Court
Syed Shah Hamed Saberi vs The State Of Telangana on 5 January, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Revision Case No.409 OF 2023
Between:
Syed Shah Hamed Saberi ... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana
Through SHO, PS Banjara Hills,
rep. by Public Prosecutor and another. ..Respondents/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED :05.01.2024
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.R.C. No.409 of 2023
% Dated 05.01.2024
# Syed Shah Hamed Saberi ... Petitioners
And
$ The State of Telangana
Through SHO, PS Banjara Hills,
rep. by Public Prosecutor and another Respondents/Complainants
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.Venumadhav
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1
Sri G.M.Mohiuddin for R2.
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.409 of 2023
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against order dated
02.12.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.1167 of 2022 in Crime No.468 of
2022 (now numbered as C.C.No.5900 of 2022) passed by the
III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the
offence under Sections 325 and 506 of IPC.
2. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint against this
petitioner and another, alleging offences under Sections 325
and 506 of IPC. Complaint was filed on 13.06.2022 alleging
that the 2nd respondent and this petitioner have purchased flat
bearing No.202 in Classic Apartments situated at Road No.10,
Banjara Hills, by way of joint investment. This petitioner was
insisting that the amounts invested for the purchase of flat
should be paid back to him. On 13.06.2022, it is alleged that
this petitioner and his brother Ali Saberi asked the 2nd
respondent to come to Silver Salt Restaurant. Ali Saberi
picked up quarrel and attacked with sharp weapon with an
intention to kill him. Due to the assault by Ali Saberi (A2) he
was shown as A2 in the complaint. According to the charge
sheet filed, the attack was planned by this petitioner and
executed by Ali Saberi. The said acts of Ali Saberi and this
petitioner amount to offences punishable under Sections 325
and 506 of IPC, for which complaint was filed.
3. Though the complaint was filed against this petitioner
and Ali Saberi, the police during the course of investigation
found that it was Ali Saberi who called the 2nd respondent to
Silver Salt Restaurant for settling the property disputes. After
receiving the call from Ali Saberi, the 2nd respondent reached
the spot. Then, Ali Saberi picked up quarrel and attacked with
hands. Accordingly charge sheet was filed only against Ali
Saberi.
4. Since the police did not array this petitioner as accused,
protest petition was filed by the 2nd respondent. Having
recorded the sworn statement of the 2nd respondent, learned
Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 109
r/w 325 and 506 of IPC against the petitioner by rejecting the
final report filed by the Investigating Officer to the extent of
not finding this petitioner liable for the attack on the 2nd
respondent.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the learned Magistrate has not assigned any valid
reasons for taking cognizance against this petitioner and
issued summons.
6. It was further argued that this petitioner was not present
at the time when the alleged incident had taken place. Except
stating that this petitioner was also involved and at the
instance of this petitioner, Ali Saberi had attacked, cannot
form basis to direct the petitioner to undergo criminal trial.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent would submit that though the petitioner was not
present at the scene, it was his plan to attack the 2nd
respondent and accordingly, it was executed by Ali Saberi. If
not being present at the scene, would form basis for not
proceeding in a criminal case, any person, who intends to
commit an offence would stay away from the scene and hire
persons to commit the offence. Merely not being present at the
scene, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not
responsible. Learned counsel further stated that at the time of
concluding his argument that he intends to file written
arguments, however, no written arguments were filed.
8. The police having investigated the case concluded that
this petitioner was not present when the incident had taken
place for which reason, proceedings were dropped against this
petitioner and charge sheet was filed against Ali Saberi after
examining CCTV footage and witnesses.
9. The only basis for including the petitioner as accused is
the statement of the 2nd respondent that he received a call
from the phone of Ali Saberi. However, this petitioner had also
talked to him and asked him to come to Silver Salt
Restaurant. Ali Saberi is the brother of this petitioner.
Admittedly, the alleged call was received from Ali Saberi's
phone and this petitioner was not present at the hotel where
the complainant was attacked. It appears to be improbable
that the complainant was called to a public place like
restaurant to be attacked and cause injuries and not a
secluded place.
10. In the complaint and the statement made, it is mentioned
that Ali Saberi picked up quarrel and attacked with a sharp
weapon. Apparently, the alleged incident of attack was after a
quarrel in between Ali Saberi and the complainant. The
consequence of the quarrel was attack by Ali Saberi. In the
said circumstances, only for the reason of the complainant
stating that the petitioner had talked to him after Ali Saberi
had called him, cannot form basis to prosecute the petitioner
for the offence under Section 325 r/w 109 of IPC.
11. Abetment is an act of instigating any person to do a thing
or engaging with one or more persons in conspiracy and in
pursuance of such conspiracy doing such thing. Further,
intentional aiding by any act or illegal omission in doing such
thing amounts to abetment as defined under Section 107 of
IPC.
12. Section 109 IPC enables punishment for abetment and
applies though the abettor is not present at the scene.
However, as narrated by the complainant, Ali Saberi picked up
quarrel in the hotel and consequently there was an attack. The
attack was a result of quarrel at the hotel in between Ali
Saberi and the Complainant, as such, it cannot be said that
this petitioner had instigated or engaged or intentionally aided
the said Ali Saberi to attack the complainant.
13. It is not the case that the petitioner had criminally
intimidated the complainant at the time of alleged
conversation on phone, as such, the offence under Section 506
of IPC is not attracted.
14. For the above discussed reasons, the petitioner succeeds
and proceedings against him are liable to be quashed.
15. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioner/A2
in Crime No.468 of 2022 and consequent C.C No.5900 of 2022
on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Consequently, the impugned
dated 02.12.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.1167 of 2022 in Cr.No.468 of
2022 is set aside.
16. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date : 05.01.2024
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.409 of 2023
Dt.05.01.2024
kvs
