Telangana High Court
Sri Mesram Sai Viviek, vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 July, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6247 of 2023
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/accused No.2 in C.C.No.03
of 2017 on the file of the learned special Judge for SPE and
ACB Cases, Karimnagar District, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1), (d) read with 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de
facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police stating
that his father-in-law is in possession of Plot No.7-2-46/3,
admeasuring 46.66 square yards of house situated at
Bhukthapur, Adilabad Town. Later, his father-in-law
registered the said plot in the name of his son through a
registered sale deed but, due to oversight, the extent of the
said house was mentioned as 50 yards instead of 46.66
square yards. As his father-in-law has become bedridden due
to severe ill health, respondent No.2 obtained loan for the
medical expenditure of his father-in-law. One Sri Linga
SKS,J
Reddy, Advocate observed that the extent of the house site
was exaggerated in the registration documents due to
oversight instead of actual extent and said thatif the same can
be rectified through rectification deed, he would arrange the
loan. Thereafter, respondent No.2 approached Senior
Assistant at Sub-Registrar Office and handed over the Xerox
copies of previous registration documents, with a request to
come to the home for taking the signatures of his father-in-
law. In turn, the said Senior Assistant demanded an amount
of Rs.7,000/- as bribe for himself, his Junior Assistant and
Attender for completing the registration process.
3. Thereafter, on persistent requests of respondent No.2
that he is facing financial problems and was unable to give
bribe, finally the Senior Assistant demanded an amount of
Rs.2,000/- for himself and Rs.1,500/- for his Junior Assistant
and Rs.500/- for his Attender, totaling to Rs.4,000/- as bribe
to complete the registration. As there was no other option,
respondent No.2 agreed to give the bribe. Later, as instructed
by the officers of Sub-Registrar Office, respondent No.2
obtained medical certificate in respect of his father-in-law and
submitted a letter to the Senior Assistant by enclosing the
SKS,J
medical certificate, with a request for registration of
rectification deed on the ground that he is bedridden due to ill
health. The said Senior Assistant visited his uncle's house
and received an amount of Rs.1,000/- for private registration.
Two days after taking the signatures of father-in-law of
respondent No.2, he again went to the Sub-Registrar Office,
for which, the Senior Assistant asked to give an amount of
Rs.4,000/- as advance otherwise the rectification deed will not
be provided. As respondent No.2 was unwilling to get his
work, he approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
A.C.B. Karimnagar at Adilabad and lodged a complaint.
4. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a
case in Crime No.48/RCT-ACB-KNR/2013 and after
completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet vide
C.C.No.03 of 2017 before the learned Special Judge for SPE &
ACB, Cases, Karimnagar.
5. Heard Sri M. Bhoopati, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Sridhar Chikyala,
learned Special Public Prosecutor of ACB Cases (TS), for
respondent No.1-State.
SKS,J
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
allegation that due to the mistake of the registration staff the
measurement of the subject site was recorded as 50 square
yards instead of 46.66 square yards but it was totally wrong
because the sale deed was drafted and got registered by
respondent No.2. He further submitted that private
registration should be done at the behest of the Registrar only,
and upon the directions of the Registrar only the Senior
Assistant along with Attender visited the house of the father-
in-law of respondent No.2 and done the registration.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that a perusal of the complaint shows that the Senior
Assistant asked respondent No.2 that whether the bribe
amount was brought or not, but the petitioner even did not
speak to respondent No.2 about the bribe. Therefore, the
allegations leveled against the petitioner do not constitute any
offence, as such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings
against him.
8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing
for respondent No.1 submitted that the tainted amount of
Rs.4,000/- was recovered from A3 at the instance of AO1 and
SKS,J
AO2 and that there is a demand of bribe from the petitioner
for handing over the rectification deed, as such, it requires
trial and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
9. 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.
10. 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
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
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."
11. In the present case, it appears that though the learned
counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner did not
demand bribe, the averments in the complaint shows that the
Senior Assistant has demanded the bribe from respondent
No.2 for handing over of the rectification deed. A perusal of
the charge sheet shows that the ACB officials on 26.11.2013
visited the Sub-Registrar office and organized the chemical
test in glass tumblers separately and when A3 rinsed both
hand fingers of AO1, AO2, and A3 separately in which A3
rinsed his right hand fingers yielded positive result and there
was no change in remaining five glass tumblers. the tainted
amount of Rs.4,000/- was recovered from A3 at the instance
of AO1 and AO2. Later, one of the mediators counted and
compared the numbers and denominations of the currency
notes already noted in the pre-trap proceedings and found
them tallied. The DSP organized chemical test by dipping the
inner flap of left side front pocket of the wearing pant of A3,
which came into contact with the tainted currency notes and
SKS,J
yielded positive result. Though there is no recovery from the
petitioner, the main allegations are against AO1 and AO2 and
the recovery is from A3. Further, AO1, AO2 and A3 demanded
and accepted the bribe. As per the averments in the
complaint, all the three are gained, therefore, it requires trial.
12. In view of the above, Prima facie, it appears that there
are allegations against the petitioner and therefore, at this
stage, it cannot be said that the said allegations are frivolous
and the same requires trial.
13. 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 are liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
___________
K. SUJANA
Date: 18.07.2024
SAI
