Telangana High Court

Yendluru Suresh Guruji Triloknath vs State Of Telangana on 26 June, 2024

       THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
           CRIMINAL PETITION No.6558 OF 2024



ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash

the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in

P.R.C.No.115 of 2023 in Cr.No.640 of 2021 (charge sheet

No.1214 of 2021 dated 14.03.2023) pending on the file of the

X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally,

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B,

364, 302, 201, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (for short 'the IPC').

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent

No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that he

is native of Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh, but he resides

with his maternal uncle (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') in Net

Away Hostel, Road NO.6, Addagutta Society, KPHB Colony.

However, in view of his semester examination, on 08.07.2021

when he went to his native place, he used to contact the

deceased time and again over phone calls. On 19.07.2021

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6558 OF 2024

when the deceased enquired about the return of respondent

NO.2 to Hyderabad, the respondent No.2 told that he would

come on the next day as his journey ticket got cancelled.

However, when the respondent No.2 returned to hostel, he

could not find the deceased anywhere and when he attempted

to contact him over phone, his efforts went in vain as he found

that the phone of deceased is switched off. Even after enquiry

in the vicinity and with people of acquaintance, when the

respondent No.2 found no traces of deceased, as such, he

lodged missing compliant before the Police Station.

3. On receipt of the said missing complaint, the Police

commenced the investigation in the matter and found in the

CCTV Camera footages that on 20.07.2021 one Sudhakar

Babu, Mallesh and others held and abducted the deceased in

a red car bearing No.AP28DD4884. On enquiry, it was found

that the said Sudhakar Babu and Mallesh quarreled with the

deceased on an earlier occasion for abusing

Guruji/petitioner/accused No.3 and also threatened to kill

him.

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6558 OF 2024

4. During the course of investigation, on receipt of credible

information, on 02.08.2021 the Police apprehended the said

Mallesh-Accused No.1, Sudhakar Babu-Accused No.2 and on

their interrogation, they voluntarily confessed that they along

with Guruji/petitioner/accused No.3 and one Krishnam Raju-

Accused No.4 conspired to murder the deceased and in

pursuance of the same, they abducted the deceased, beat him

with iron pipe and throttled him to death and carried his dead

body to Sunnipenta burial ground and burnt the corpse

through Katikapari by false representation.

5. On completion of due investigation, the Police filed

charge sheet against the accused persons whereunder, the

petitioner was arrayed as accused No.3. Aggrieved thereby,

this petition is filed.

6. Heard Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for

petitioner/accused No.3, and Sri Rurdresh Deshpande,

learned counsel representing the Office of learned Public

Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State. No

representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6558 OF 2024

7. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is highly respectable person in the society and the

accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are some of his followers along with

large number of followers and patients who seek his help in

treating them medically and spiritually. He contended that the

accused Nos.1 and 2 may have a grudge on the deceased for

his alleged comments on the character of their wives, as a

result of which they might have committed crime and that the

petitioner has nothing to do with the same. He asserted that

in the absence of prima facie material collected on the basis of

the statements of respondent NO.2 and co-accused, a case

cannot be implicated against the petitioner. He lamented that

there are no specific set of allegations leveled against the

petitioner in the complaint, as well as, in the charge sheet and

basing on mere suspicion, the petitioner cannot be implicated

in the case and the same amounts to abuse of process of law.

8. In support of the said contentions, the learned counsel

for petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, in the case of Yogesh Alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs.

State of Maharashtra 1 it is observed that only suspicion of

(2008) 10 SCC 394

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6558 OF 2024

motive is not sufficient to bring home an offence of murder. He

contended that the Investigation Officer is supposed to provide

lead details of the offences in the charge sheet, is mandatory.

In support of the said contention, he relied on the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharif Ahmed and Another

Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 2 whereunder, it was

observed that the investigation officer must make clear and

complete entries in the columns in the charge sheet so that the

Court can clearly understand which crime has been committed

by which accused and what is the material evidence available

on file and the statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and

that the role played by the accused in the crime should be

clearly mentioned in the charge sheet for each of the accused

persons, whereas, the same is not the case with regard to the

averments made against the petitioner. Therefore, prayed this

Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

9. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1, submitted that the

allegations levelled against the petitioner/accused No.3 are

serious in nature and the offences registered are under

(2024) SCC OnLine SC 726

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6558 OF 2024

Sections 120-B, 364, 302, 201, 506 read with 34 of IPC. He

contended that the in the present case there is presence of

conspiracy theory to kill the uncle of respondent NO.2 and

though there are no averments with regard to physical

involvement of the petitioner/accused No.3 in the incident,

the confessions of accused Nos.1 and 2 would reveal that the

petitioner/accused No.3 was actively involved in the said

conspiracy. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the

criminal petition.

10. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on

going through the material placed on record, it is noted that

the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

there are no set of specific allegations made against the

petitioner and even in the charge sheet there is no particular

averment made which proves the role or involvement of

petitioner in the crime.

11. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that in a petition

filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court cannot conduct

a mini trial and is only inclined to take into account the

averments made in the complaint, statements of witnesses

and the charge sheet. That being so, it is vital to note the

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6558 OF 2024

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central

Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh 3, whereunder, in

paragraph No.10 it was categorically held as below:

"10. From the impugned common judgment

and order passed by the High Court, it

appears that the High Court has dealt with

the proceedings before it, as if, the High

Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the

High Court was considering the applications

against the judgment and order passed by

the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial.

As per the cardinal principle of law, at the

stage of discharge and/or quashing of the

criminal proceedings, while exercising the

powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court

is not required to conduct the mini trial. The

High Court in the common impugned

judgment and order has observed that the

charges against the accused are not proved.

                  This       is   not          the       stage    where     the

                  prosecution/investigating                  agency       is/are

required to prove the charges. The charges

are required to be proved during the trial on

the basis of the evidence led by the

2023 SCC OnLine SC 379

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6558 OF 2024

prosecution/investigating agency. Therefore,

the High Court has materially erred in going

in detail in the allegations and the material

collected during the course of the

investigation against the accused, at this

stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while

exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.

P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction

and is required to consider "whether any

sufficient material is available to proceed

further against the accused for which the

accused is required to be tried or not."

12. In addition to the above, it is also just and proper to

mention that 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

against the accused persons, as alleged by the Police. That

being so, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra

Kori 4, 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

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6558 OF 2024

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."