Telangana High Court
Madupu Venu Gopal Rao And 3 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 12 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3329 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 petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in
C.C.No.9809 of 2021 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan
Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Rachakonda Commissionerate,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and
506 read with 34 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, Meerpet
Police Station, Rachakonda Police Station, stating that on
30.10.2021, some unknown persons came to her home and
knocked the gate and when she came outside and questioned
them one person introduced himself by name Venu i.e.,
petitioner No.1 and asked for Teja, who has given this address.
In the meantime, they criminally trespassed into her home and
threatened her with dire consequences and told that Teja was
supposed to give them some money, otherwise, they put the tent
infront of her home. Basing on the said complaint, the Police
SKS,J
registered a case in Crime No.850 of 2021, for the offences
punishable under Sections 448 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC
and the same was numbered as C.C.No.9809 of 2021 before the
learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Rachakonda
Commissionerate.
3. Heard Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1-State and Sri Chavali Ramanand, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that one
Teja gave the address of respondent No.2, as such, the
petitioners went to her house for collecting the money. He
further submitted that the matter is purely civil in nature. Only
to avoid the payment to the petitioners, respondent No.2 filed
the criminal case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
primarily, respondent No.2 has no locus standi to file a
complaint against the petitioners. Secondly, there are no
ingredients of 506 of IPC., as alleged. The requisite permission
as required under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C., has not been
SKS,J
obtained by the Investigating Officer to investigate into the
subject crime. Without obtaining such permission, final report
is filed in the subject crime. As such, it is bad in law for non-
compliance of obtaining requisite permission under Section 155
(2) of Cr.P.C. As there is no commission of cognizable offence,
the petitioners cannot be proceeded. In support of his
submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the
Judgment of this Court in Criminal Petition No.3653 of 2015.
Therefore, the allegations leveled against the petitioners are
vague and baseless and prayed the Court to quash the
proceedings against them.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 respectively
submitted that trial has almost completed and all the witnesses
are already examined. At this stage, quashing of proceedings do
not arise and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the
learned counsel and the material placed on record, the prime
contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
offences as alleged by the prosecution are non cognizable and
the Police filed charge sheet without any permission from the
SKS,J
Magistrate. The offences alleged against the petitioners are
under Sections 448 and 506 read with 34 of IPC.
8. 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.
9. 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
10. In the present case, it is to be taken note that though
Section 506 of IPC is a non-cognizable offence, the Section 448
of IPC is a cognizable offence. The contention of learned counsel
for the petitioners is that there are no averments to constitute
the offence under Section 448 of IPC and that the Section 506 of
IPC being non-cognizable offence, the Police cannot register the
case without seeking permission of the Court under Section 155
of Cr.P.C.
11. On going through the averment of the criminal trespass
that is made in the complaint and chargesheet, wherein, it is
shown that the accused have criminally trespassed into the
house of respondent NO.2 and threatened her. Further, the
statements of the witnesses would show that the petitioners
have entered into the compound. Therefore, the same cannot be
decided at this stage and the same requires trial.
12. While dealing with the petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., this Court cannot conduct mini trial and the
jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent
abuse of process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends
of justice. When there are prima facie averments made in the
complaint to constitute offence under Section 448 of IPC which
is a cognizable offence, the Police can register FIR even without
SKS,J
the permission of the Court and moreover, in the case on hand,
the Section 506 of IPC registered against the petitioners is non-
cognizable. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned
counsel for petitioners are not applicable in this case. Further,
as there are prima facie averments made against the petitioner
in the complaint, chargesheet and the statements of witnesses,
this Court is of the firm view that the matter requires trial and
the proceedings initiated against the petitioners cannot be
quashed and this petition is liable to be dismissed.
13. In view of the above discussion and as well as the law laid
down by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra
Kori (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.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
___________
K. SUJANA
Date: 12.06.2024
SAI
SKS,J
