C.Prabhakar vs State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 1339 Tel

Telangana High Court

C.Prabhakar vs State Of Telangana on 28 March, 2024

Author: G.Radha Rani

Bench: G.Radha Rani

        THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

                CRIMINAL PETITION No.1133 OF 2018

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-A1 to A5 under

Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") to

quash the proceedings in C.C.No.75 of 2017 on the file of the XXIV

Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 147 and 342 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 03.11.2014 at 22.40

hours, the de-facto complainant, the Secretary of Andhra Mahila Sabha,

Durgabai Deshmukh Hospital and Research Centre, Vidyanagar lodged a

report stating that on 01.11.2014, the management of AMS Hospital had

placed B. Srinivas and driver Raghavender under suspension for their

unruly behavior and abusing the management of the hospital in filthy

language. Keeping the said issue in mind, on 03.11.2014, at about 12.00

noon, the Union President and office bearers, A1 to A5 along with 30 to 40

members confined the complainant and other lady workers of the

administrative staff. Even though the complainant and other office bearers

tried to convince the agitating employees, they did not listen.

Dr.GRR,J

3. Basing on the said report, Crime No.289 of 2014 was registered for

the offences under Sections 147 and 342 of IPC. A1 to A5 were arrested on

22.07.2015 and after investigation, charge sheet was filed against them for

the above offences. Cognizance was taken by the learned XXIV Special

Magistrate and the same was numbered as C.C.No.75 of 2017.

4. Heard Sri V.Raghunath, the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioners, Sri H. Srikanth, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the de-facto

complainant-cum-respondent No.2, who was appointed as Secretary to the

Durgabai Deshmukh Hospital was a retired police officer. He was waiting

to suppress the movement of trade union and was foisting false cases

against the union leaders. The trade unions were agitating against the

management to resolve the basic problems of the employees and to

implement their fundamental rights which were assured by the Constitution

of India and as per the various Labour Acts. The Secretary of the Durgabai

Deshmukh Hospital instead of resolving the problems was creating

problems to the employees. The State Government orally directed the

respondent No.2 to implement the promotions, increments and arrears, but

he did not do that. The same was questioned by the two employees and

Dr.GRR,J

informed him that it was against the agreement executed before the Deputy

Chief Minister on 07.08.2014. Instead of giving clarification, he suspended

them on 01.11.2024. As part of union activity, the office bearers of the

union met the de-facto complainant and negotiated with him to reinstate the

suspended employees on 03.11.2014. The petitioners neither confined him

nor acted illegally against him. Being a retired police officer, using his

influence, he got deployed 100 policemen in the hospital and got lathi

charge against nurses, ayaas and ward boys. Many of them were injured.

Though a complaint was lodged against such activity, the same was not

registered by the SHO, but the present case was registered against the

petitioners on the report given by the de-facto complainant. Subsequently,

petitioners approached the Hon'ble Chief Minister to interfere in the subject

matter. On 18.11.2014, the Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister directed the de-

facto complainant to act in accordance with law and not to make any

criminal complaints on the labour. It was the moral responsibility of the

office bearers of the union to negotiate with the de-facto complainant to

reinstate the suspended employees. But a false story was fabricated by the

de-facto complainant with the assistance of LWs.2 to 4, the staff of the

hospital. The complaint was lodged with an ulterior motive and a malafide

intention. Even if the act committed by the workers was considered as true,

the management had a recourse to law by treating the same as misconduct

Dr.GRR,J

and to initiate domestic enquiry and to take disciplinary action, but resorted

to foist false cases on the new office bearers of the union. A1 was a

practicing Advocate at High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and was also

a patron member of the High Court Bar Association. He was elected as

President of three employees unions of the Durgabai Deshmukh Hospital.

He had good track record in offering legal services to the labour and poor

people. Out of the remaining four accused, three were women and one

belonged to Scheduled Caste. They were engaged in the welfare of the

employees and prayed to quash the proceedings against them to prevent

abuse of process of law.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that there was

prima facie material against the petitioners as per the charge sheet filed by

the Investigating Officer. The truth or otherwise of the contentions of the

learned counsel for the petitioners could be determined only after

conducting a full fledged trial and prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that inherent

powers to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. had to be

exercised sparingly only where the allegations made in the complaint or in

the FIR even if taken on their face value, would not prima facie disclose the

commission of the offence. It was well settled that High Court should be

Dr.GRR,J

slow in interfering with the proceedings at the initial stage. The charge

sheet prima facie would disclose the commission of offences. A fair

investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer. The order of

cognizance was passed by the learned Magistrate. There was no legal

infirmity in the said order and relied upon the judgment of High Court of

Allahabad in Malti Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. 1

8. Perused the record. The contents of the report lodged by the de-facto

complainant and the statements of the witnesses recorded by the

Investigating Officer would disclose that the de-facto complainant stated

about the riotous behavior of the union members in confining him and lady

workers of the administrative staff from 12 noon on 03.11.2024 till 07.:15

P.M. in the evening. The witnesses cited as LWs.2 to 4 also stated about

the names of the petitioners along with 30 to 40 members entering into the

administrative building, creating halchal in convincing the Secretary and

the administrative staff in the office by them.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of West

Bengal and Others 2 held that:

"7. This Court has consistently held that the revisional or inherent powers of quashing the proceedings at the initial stage

2019 SCC OnLine All 4136

(2002) 1 SCC 555

Dr.GRR,J

should be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR, even if taken it at the face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence. Disputed and controversial facts cannot be made the basis for the exercise of the jurisdiction."

9.1. In Mahesh Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan 3 held that:

"11. The principle providing for exercise of the power by a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a criminal proceeding is well known. The court shall ordinarily exercise the said jurisdiction, inter alia, in the event the allegations contained in the FIR or the Complaint Petition even if on face value are taken to be correct in their entirety, does not disclose commission of an offence.

12. It is also well settled that save and except very exceptional circumstances, the court would not look to any document relied upon by the accused in support of his defence. Although allegations contained in the complaint petition may disclose a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue. For the purpose of exercising its jurisdiction, the superior courts are also required to consider as to whether the allegations made in the FIR or Complaint Petition fulfill the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused.

14. While saying so, we are not unmindful of the limitations of the court's power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is primarily for one either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The court at that stage would not embark upon appreciation of evidence. The Court shall moreover consider the materials on record as a whole."

(2009) 4 SCC 439

Dr.GRR,J

9.2. In State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 4 formulated the following

seven guidelines:

1. "Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

Dr.GRR,J

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

10. Considering the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex court in the above

cases, as the complaint, statements of witnesses and the charge sheet filed

by the police prima facie would disclose the commission of the alleged

offences and this Court cannot go into the defence of the accused or their

conduct and track record at this stage, it is considered not fit to quash the

proceedings against them in C.C.No.75 of 2017. The truth or otherwise of

the allegations can be decided only after full fledged trial.

11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J March 28, 2024 SS