Telangana High Court
Dr. Parimal Roy vs The State Of Telangana on 3 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2524 of 2022
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 in S.C.No.91 of
2019 on the file of the learned X Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Sessions Judge, FTC for Atrocities
Against Women-1, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 376 (I) and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.')
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de
facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police,
Mahankali Police Station, Mahankali Division, North Zone,
Secunderabad stating that she is working as Associate
Maharashtra, Animals and Fisheries Science University,
Bombay Veterinary College. It is stated that prior to the filing of
the complaint i.e., 24 years ago, she got married with one Mr.
Badal Chandra Majee and having one daughter. Prior to her
marriage, she came across with the petitioner, came up with an
offer of the post Vice-Chancellor, and convinced her to meet him
at Hyderabad, in furtherance of his evil plan of enjoying her.
SKS,J
The petitioner asked her to book a hotel in Hyderabad, as such,
she booked a hotel and on 30.08.2017 and they checked the
room and started working on application and intimated him
about it. On 31.08.2017, the petitioner came outside of her
room and said that he came by flight from Banglore and took
her for dinner and asked her to work on the application after
dinner as he has come to help her for some purpose and the
work would be done in the same night. After dinner, they
returned to her room and started working on the application.
During that time, while working on the application, the
petitioner tried to convince her to take physical advantage by
offering her many benefits. On persistent refusal, the petitioner
became angry and started badmouthing her and her family and
due to which, she got terrified. The petitioner further
threatened to take the life of her husband if she does not
surrender to his sexual demand. And he kept pretending that
the petitioner needs to groom her and persuaded her to meet
him at Kolhapur by threatening with dire consequences to
respondent No.2 and the life of her husband with fear in her
heart, she reached Kolhapur on 23.09.2017 and 24.09.2017 at
Kolhapur and then the petitioner committed the offence of rape.
Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in
SKS,J
Crime No.48 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Section
376(I) and 506 of the IPC and the same was numbered as
S.C.No.91 of 2019 on the file of the learned X Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Sessions Judge, FTC
for Atrocities Against Women-1, Nampally, Hyderabad.
3. Heard Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri T. Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State
and Smt. C. Vasundara Reddy, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a bare
perusal of the complaint shows that when they met at
Hyderabad, the petitioner tried to convince her to take physical
advantage by offering many benefits. At that time, she did not
given any complaint against the petitioner to her husband or in
the Police Station. Later, when the petitioner and respondent
No.2 met at Kolhapur in hotel, she complained that the
petitioner committed rape. Learned counsel further submitted
that as respondent No.2 being the well-educated person, she
could not say that she was under threat to the life of her
husband, as such, the complaint itself is a frivolous complaint.
SKS,J
5. Learned counsel further submitted that for the post of
Vice-Chancellor and ISVIB Fellow award only she booked the
hotel for convincing the petitioner. On refusal of the same, she
bored grudge and she filed the present complaint. He further
submitted that the incident was occurred two times in the year
2017 but the complaint was given in March, 2018. Therefore,
there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner has influenced
respondent No.2 for sexual intercourse, as such, the allegations
leveled against the petitioner are vague and baseless. Hence, he
prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against him.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted
that the petitioner threatened respondent No.2 that if she do not
co-operate for sexual intercourse, he will kill her husband.
Earlier, she did not inform the same to her husband, as such,
she did not given the complaint. After informing the same to
her husband, she gave complaint. Learned counsel further
submitted that respondent No.2 withdraw her name in ISVIB
Fellow award and there is no scope for filing false complaint.
Therefore, the allegations leveled against the petitioner are
serious in nature, which requires trial and prayed the Court to
dismiss the petition.
SKS,J
7. 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.
8. 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."
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
9. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the prime
contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
complaint itself is a concocted story and the incident was
occurred in the year 2017 and the complaint was given in the
year 2018. Further, respondent No.2 herself booked a hotel for
two persons in Kolhapur for convincing him for ISVIB Fellow
award only, which shows that she is not an innocent lady. The
learned counsel appearing for respondents informed the Court
that respondent No.2 withdraw her name from the ISVIB Fellow
award and there is no scope for filing the complaint.
10. In view of the facts and circumstance of the case, it is
noted that primarily respondent No.2 is under the influence of
the petitioner for the purpose of ISVIB Fellow award and later
she withdraw her name from ISVIB fellowship. When
respondent No.2 withdraws her name from the said fellowship,
giving false complaint, as she was not selected for fellowship
does not arise. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no
truth in the complaint and the petitioner is no way concerned
with the allegations leveled against him. Further, whether
respondent No.2 has herself withdrawn her name from ISVIB
Fellow award or not can be decided only after full-fledged trial.
SKS,J
11. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid
down in Surendra Kori case (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.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
___________
K. SUJANA
Date: 03.06.2024
SAI
