Telangana High Court
Sanigarapu Sreekar Alias Rajasreekar ... vs The State Of Telangana on 31 July, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10938 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the
petitioner-accused No.1 seeing to quash the proceedings in
S.C.No.142 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge
(FTC) for Atrocities against Women at Hyderabad, for the offences
punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 354, 354(a), 354(b), 344, 385,
420, 505(1) (b), 505 (2) of Indian Penal Code and Section 67 (A) of IT
Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent is the
victim in this case who is divorcee belonging into Yerukala
Community, after divorce, she completed her Post Graduate L.L.M
course and worked as a legal advisor in various companies and
thereafter she joined in the newly started company known as M/s
Speed Jet Private Limited belonging to the petitioner/A1 in
Pandemic period. While she was working in the said company of
petitioner/A1, she lodged a complaint against 139 persons who are
mainly against the relatives of the Ex-husband and his persons
regarding the sexual assault. When the matter in the investigation
she was examined medically and the crime was registered against
21 persons and A1 name was not added, thereafter with the
collusion of L.W4, the name of the petitioner/A1 was added and
later alleging that while she was working in his company as a legal
advisor, A1 said that she is having some kind of 'DOSHAM' and he
can cure the same and he performed pooja and this went on 9 to 10
days. During the 9th day, he tied one yellow thread in her neck and
said that from that day onwards she is the wife and he is the
husband and committed rape for 9 days. She is also alleged that
during her period as an employee, A1 has collected lakhs of rupees
from the employees in the name of the opening a NGO Trust in
order to get donations from the Foreign Social Organizations and
cheated them likewise, A1 also started an organization in the name
of the God Power Foundation and involved her parents and collected
amounts and was deposited in the bank accounts of the 2nd
respondent and the petitioner herein has withdrawn the amount by
using her debit cards and she also alleged that the petitioner is
having porn videos in his laptop. As such, she gave a complaint
against the petitioner and the police have registered the case vide
crime No.467 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections
376(2), 509, 354, 354 (a), 354 (b), 354(c) of IPC and 3(1)(r)(s),
3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that, the contents of the
charge-sheet, complaint dated 20.08.2020 and the 161 Cr.P.C
statements of de-facto complainant/L.W.1and L.W.4 coupled with
the registering and Re-registering the crime No.467 of 2020 of Police
Station Panjagutta and crime No.105 of 2020 of Police Station
Central Crime Station at Hyderabad, clearly shows that the de-facto
complainant/L.W.1 and L.W.4 who is the President of Telangana
Yerukala Sangam falsely implicated the A1 in this case after
consultation, even though the case is registered against 139
persons and Re-register the F.I.R shows 22 persons as accused who
has sexually assaulted the de-facto complainant but no name of the
petitioner was shown. As per the complaint, due to inducement and
coercion and the threat, the 2nd respondent lodged the complaint
which is registered as crime No.467 of 2020 and subsequently Re-
register by the P.S C.C.S police and there is no cogent and
convincing evidence on record to show that the de-facto
complainant has been induced by the accused and thereby she
lodged a complaint on the inducement and coercion. The de-facto
complainant further submitted that on the basis of the complaint
given by the de-facto complainant, the crime has been registered
against 139 persons wherein the said crime No.467 of 2020 of Police
Station Panjagutta shows that the de-facto complainant has
mentioned therein that she was married and after disputes, divorce
she has taken divorce. Thereafter, she studied up to L.L.M and her
Ex-husband relatives and others were committed sexual assault
upon her and she has given names of her Ex-husband relatives and
others who have assaulted her. Which clearly shows L.W4 has
concocted the false story of sexual assault by the petitioner and it is
a false case.
4. Further contention is that petitioner falsely implicated in the
said case who came from S.C community and poor family and just
started the business. The police before Re-registering the case, sent
the de-facto complainant for medical examination and the medical
report is not in support of the prosecution, which is a vital piece of
evidence shows that she was not sexually assaulted. Moreover
there is no trustworthy evidence on record to show that the
petitioner has committed any nature of assault on the 2nd
respondent. The contents of the charge sheet, complaint and 161
Cr.P.C statements of the 2nd respondent are vague. There are no
specific incidents of offences in respect of the sexual assault as
alleged in the charge-sheet. As such, the alleged offences against
the petitioner/accused do not constitute any offences and police
have not investigated the case properly and not followed the
procedure and the allegations against the petitioner are baseless.
As such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against this
petitioner.
5. Heard Sri P.Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner-
A1, S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1/State and Ms Devara Samhitha, learned counsel for
respondent No.2/Defacto complainant.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is
no basis for registering the case against the petitioner and in the
earlier complaint also his name was not mentioned and after
Re-registration of the case, the name of the petitioner was
impleaded in the crime and he is an innocent person and due to the
business rivalry, he has been falsely implicated in this case at the
instance of L.W4 and further submitted that the FSL report is also
not in corroborating with the statement of L.W1. He further
contended that the police have not followed the procedure while
collecting the electronic evidence and as such, continuation of
proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of the
process of law and hence, sought to quash the proceedings against
petitioner-Accused No.1.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2-
de-facto complainant submitted that there are serious allegations
against the petitioner that the de-facto complainant was sexually
harassed by the petitioner under the guise of job and she was
abused by the petitioner. She further contended that the
allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature and
as such, he prayed to dismiss the criminal petition.
8. While arguing in similar lines, the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor also submitted that the offences alleged against the
petitioner are serious in nature and the proceedings against the
petitioner - A1 cannot be quashed at this stage and hence, prayed
to dismiss the criminal petition.
9. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and High Court in Shambhu Kharwar Vs.State of Uttar
Pradesh and another 1 , Tilak Raj Vs.State of Himachal
Pradesh 2 , V.JayaLatha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 3 ,
G.P.Hemakoti Reddy, Ananthapur District Vs Public Prosecutor
Hyderabad and another 4 , Ritesh Sinha Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another 5, Dr.Mehmood Nayyar Azam Vs.State of
Chattisgarh and others 6, Varala Bharath Kumar Vs.State of
Telangana 7 , Sathish Mehra Vs.State of N.C.T.of Delhi and
Another 8 , Vineet Kumar and others Vs.State of U.P.and
another 9 , Shakson Belthissor Vs.State of Kerala and
another 10, All Cargo Movers (INDIA) Private Limited and others
2022(2) ALD (Crl.)707 (SC)
AIR 2016 SC 406
2019 (2) ALD (Crl.) 650 (AP)
2022 (2) ALT (Crl.) 408 (AP)
2019 (2) ALD (Crl.) 591 (SC)
AIR 2012 SC 2573
2018 Crl.L.J.431 (SC)
AIR 2013 (SC) 506
2017 (2) ALT (Crl.) 302 (SC)
(2009) 14 SCC 466
Vs Dhanesh Badarmal Jain and another 11, K.Chandrasekhar
Rao Vs. State of A.P.rep by Public Prosecutor High Court of
A.P.Hyderabad and another 12 , Gattu Vaman Rao Vs.State of
A.P., rep.by its Public Prosecutor 13, S.R.Tewari Vs.State of A.P.,
rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and
another 14 and R.Kalyani Vs.Janak C.Mehta and others 15
10. Having regard to the rival submissions and material on
record, the allegations against the petitioner, show that the
petitioner has committed the offences punishable under Sections
376(2) (n), 354, 354 (a), 354 (b), 344, 385, 420, 505(1) (b), 505 (2)
IPC and 67 (A) of IT Act. While the petitioner sought for quashing of
S.C.No.142 of 2023 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has see
the complaint and the statement of the witnesses. The complainant
in this case is given by R2 stating that she is a divorcee and she is
in search of job. Under the guise of providing job, the petitioner
induced her sexually and harassed and sexually exploited her and
the same was stated in her 161 Cr.P.C statement. The statement of
L.W4, father of R2 also corroborates the same. Allegations leveled
against the petitioner are serious in nature, it is not the stage to see
the contradictions and the same can be decided by the trial Court.
(2007) 14 SCC 776
2005 (2) ALT (Crl.)159 (A.P)
2020 (2) ALT (Crl.) 196 (S.B)
2017(1) ALT (Crl.) 162 (A.P)
(2009) 1 SCC 516
Test to be applied is to see whether the uncontroverted allegations
as made, prima facie establish the alleged offence or not.
11. In the present case, contention of the petitioner is that due to
business rivalry, with help of L.W4, R2 foisted false case against
him and there is no specific date of sexual assault, whereas the said
contentions requires trial and the same cannot be decided in a
quash petition. Further, the veracity of FSL report cannot be
decided in this criminal petition. Though, the counsel for the
petitioner raised several contentions touching the factual aspects of
the matter and this is not the stage to decide the veracity of the said
allegations. Truthfulness of the said contentions can be revealed
during the course of trial. Evaluation of the merits of the
allegations made on either side cannot be resorted to at this stage,
as it would be premature and the trial Court should evaluate the
case on merits. Though, the petitioner gave complaint against
several persons is not a ground to quash the proceedings against
him. Further, the judgments of the various High Courts and
Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by learned counsel for the
petitioner-Accused are not relevant to the facts of the present case,
hence the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed at
this stage. Therefore, there are no merits in the petition and the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________
K.SUJANA, J
Date: 31.07.2024
dsv
