Telangana High Court
B.V. Ram Kumar vs State Of Telangana And Another on 3 May, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11653 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the
petitioner/accused No.1, to quash the proceedings against him
in C.C.No.1771 of 2022 on the file of XI Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the alleged
offences punishable under Sections 269, 270 and 504 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.02.2022, at
about 11:00 hours, the petitioner called respondent No.2 to his
chamber and asked whether respondent No.2 has knowledge
about the conduct rules, in rash and harsh manner, insulting
her in front of the staff members. Respondent No.2 left the
chamber stating that she will submit her grievance in written as
she suffered with COVID due to insufficient supply of PPE kits
and gloves during the official working hours of COVID Pandemic
in organization. It is alleged that the petitioner called respondent
No.2 to his chamber only to harass her and delayed her
promotion by repeatedly asking about her research work which
was already started by respondent No.2. Hence, a case was
registered vide Crime No. 65 of 2022 and after completion of
SKS,J
investigation, charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.1771 of 2022
on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad.
3. Heard Sri R.M.Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner
and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted there is no
evidence to prove the allegations made against the petitioner as
respondent No.2 was in leave since November, 2021. He further
submitted that despite there being instructions to all the
departments of the Organization to purchase any material to
prevent the spread of COVID-19, respondent No.2 falsely made
allegation that due to inadequate supply of PPE Kits and gloves
she was infected with COVID, only to implicate the petitioner.
Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by
quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
for respondent No.1-State opposed the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner is
constantly harassing respondent No.2 and previously also
respondent No.2 given complaint to Ministry with regard to the
conduct of the petitioner. As such, the alleged offences against
SKS,J
the petitioner requires trial. Hence, he prayed the Court to
dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. 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.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
SurendraKori 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."
8. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surendra Kori (Supra),
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
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.
9. As seen from the record, it is stated that the petitioner
misbehaved with her, as such, she filed a complaint to the
Ministry. Even after filing complaint, the petitioner continued to
call her to his chamber and spoke with her in rude and harsh
manner with regard to the internal complaints he received
through patients. It is pertinent to note that merely absconding
the duties is not a ground to discord the complaint of respondent
No.2. Since the allegations against the petitioner are serious in
nature, this Court is of the considered opinion that that the
allegations levelled against the petitioner requires trial in order
to elicit true facts of the case.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 03.05.2024
gms
