Telangana High Court
Shaik Farooq vs The State Of Telangana on 5 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.375 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 7 and 10 to
12seeking to quash the proceedings against them in
C.C.No.1991 of 2023on the file of the XXII Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad Building,
for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 353,
225 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short
'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the
respondent No.2/de facto complainant, working as the
Sub Inspector of Police, lodged a complaint stating that
on receipt of information from Mirzalguda T Junction
that a DCM vehicle bearing No.TS12UB7929
whereunder, five members along with driver were present
who were found carrying sevenoxen. On enquiry, it was
found that the said oxen were carried for the purpose of
SKS,J
slaughter during bakrid festival. The Police found that
the said oxen were taken for slaughter without having
authenticated certificate of veterinary doctor, as such,
they were taken into custody and a case was filed against
them. Thereafter, around seven to ten members claiming
themselves as local leaders and relatives of accused
persons entered into the Police station and argued with
the escort staff enquiring as to why their men were kept
in the custody and obstructed the duties of escort staff
who were present in the Police station to escort the
accused persons for escaping from lawful custody.
3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police
investigated the matter and on completion of
investigation a charge sheet was filed against the
accused persons for the offences punishable under
Sections 353, 225 read with Section 34 of IPC. Aggrieved
thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri M.Rathan Singh, learned counsel for
petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 4, 6, 7 and 10 to 11, and
Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,
SKS,J
appearing for the respondent No.1 - State. No
representation on behalf of respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that as per the remand case diary, there are no
allegations against the petitioners which states that there
was any criminal force applied on any of the Police
Officers, thus, the very invocation of Section 353 of IPC
itself amounts to abuse of process of law. He contended
that without there being any prima facie case, the
proceedings against the petitioners were initiated even
though the case is bereft of basic ingredients to make out
alleged offences against the petitioners. Therefore, prayed
this Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the
proceedings against the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor, submitted that the petitioners/accused
persons obstructed the Investigating Officer from
discharging his duties and argued with the escort staff
who were present in the Police Station for the purpose of
preventing the accused persons from escaping. He
SKS,J
contended that the allegations against the
petitioners/accused persons are serious in nature, as
such, the matter requires full fledged trial. Therefore,
prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made
and on going through the material placed on record, it is
noted that the primary allegations leveled against the
petitioners is that they arrived at police station where
their relatives were taken in custody and obstructed the
Investigating Officer from discharging his official duties
and also argued with the escort staff who were present to
prevent the escape of the persons who were taken in
custody as they were carrying seven oxen for the purpose
of slaughter, without even having valid and
authenticated certificate of veterinary doctor.The primary
contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is with
regard to the presence of petitioners in the scene of
offence and their further contention is that there is no
criminal force used in the said incident. Mere disputing
the presence is not a ground to quash the proceedings.
Further, whether any criminal force is used or not
SKS,J
cannot be decided at this stage and the same requires
trial.
8. At this stage, it is imperative to note that to
quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the
Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint
would prima facie show that the offence as alleged by the
Police constitutes.
9. As per thejudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in theState of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra
Kori 1, paragraph No.14 reads as under:
"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
(2012) 10 SCC 155
SKS,J
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."
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of this
case, and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Surendra Kori (supra) this Court is of the view that there
are no merits in this Criminal Petition and the same is
liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition
is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
also stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date:05.06.2024
PT
