Telangana High Court
Polavarapu Akhil vs State Of Telangana on 4 July, 2024
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1638 of 2020
ORDER:
Petitioner is seeking to quash the proceedings against him in
C.C.No.334 of 2020 on the file XI Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Secunderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 186,
504, 506 and 179 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and perused the record.
There is no representation for the 2nd respondent.
3. On the complaint lodged by one M.Venugopal, PC-4070 of
Karkhana Police Station on 26.12.2019 alleging that on the said date when
he called up the petitioner to check his presence, as he was suspect in
Cr.No.1 of 2013 of Mangalhat PS registered under the provisions of NDPS
Act, the petitioner behaved rudely stating that he was a Lawyer and that
the police should not come to his house to check his presence and further
threatened that they have to face serious repercussions if they come to his
house to check his details. Basing on the contents of said complaint, the
aforesaid case has been registered against the petitioner.
2 JS, J
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that a false case
was registered against the petitioner on earlier occasion in Cr.No.1 of 2013
of Mangalhat PS under the provisions of NDPS Act and after full-fledged
trial, the said case had ended in acquittal. On the pretext of registration of
said case, the Police are harassing the petitioner by repeatedly making
phone calls to him. It is further contended that all the aforesaid offences
registered against the petitioner are non-cognizable offences, therefore, the
Police themselves cannot investigate into the same without the orders of
competent criminal Court. It is also contended that the petitioner is now
practicing Advocate and is a responsible citizen and he never indulged in
any other crime, and in spite of the same, he is being harassed by the
Police by repeatedly making phone calls. It is further contended that he
never abused or behaved rudely with Police and all the allegations levelled
against him are false, and hence, the case against him is liable to be
quashed.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,
contended that in view of registration of earlier crime against the petitioner
under the provisions of NDPS Act, the Police have to keep constant
whistle on him and as a part of their duty, they often have to make phone
calls to ensure his presence and also to know his movements from time to
3 JS, J
time. It is contended that since the petitioner has behaved rudely with
Police when a call was made to him to ensure his presence, the present
case has been registered. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the criminal
petition.
6. The main ground urged by the petitioner is that the offences under
Sections 186, 504, 506 and 179 of IPC are non-cognizable offences, and
hence, Police cannot investigate into the same without the permission of
competent criminal Court. In this connection, he has relied on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v.
Ch.Bhajan Lal and others 1, wherein, it is held as under.
"Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code."
7. Counsel for petitioner has also relied on the judgment of Delhi High
Court in Crl.Rev.P.No.569 of 2017, dated 01.07.2019, wherein, it is held
that no Court shall take cognizance of any offences punishable under
Sections 172 to 178 of IPC except on the complaint in writing of the public
AIR 1992 SC 604
4 JS, J
servant concerned to the Court and has to obtain permission from the Court
in terms of Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C.
8. It is further contended that though Sections 504 and 506 of IPC are
not covered by Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C., since these two offences are also
alleged to have been committed along with the offences under Sections
179 and 186 of IPC, all the offences are to be tried jointly, as has been held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Suresh Chandra
Srivastava and Others2.
9. Apart from the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, a perusal
of the charge sheet shows that four witnesses are shown in the case, who
are all Police personnel. The Police, before going to the house of the
petitioner to check his presence, should have taken 1 or 2 independent
witnesses along with them so as to establish any untoward or unexpected
acts that may be committed by the petitioner. The complainant is shown as
LW-1 and the Constable who accompanied him is shown as an eye witness
and the Head Constable who issued FIR is shown as LW-3 and the Sub-
Inspector of Police is shown as LW-4. Without there being any
independent witness to establish the alleged phone call and the rude
behaviour of petitioner, it is difficult for the Court to record any findings
AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1108
5 JS, J
against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that
the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
10. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings
against the petitioner in C.C.No.334 of 2020 on the file of XI Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date:04.07.2024
Ksk
