Telangana High Court

Dundigalla Ragavendhra vs State Of Telangana on 5 November, 2024

       THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.10044 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/sole accused in

CC.No.1221 of 2024 on the file of the I Junior Civil Judge

cum I Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy District, at

LB.Nagar, registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 42 read with 41 of Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'JJ Act').

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

No.2/de facto complainant, who is working as Legal cum

Probation Officer, DCPU, Medchal Malkajgiri District, lodged

a complaint against the petitioner stating that basing on the

official orders obtained from CWC,DCPU Team, he conducted

a rescue operation in an organization run by petitioner by

name "Vatsalya Voluntary Organization" and found that the

said organization was run by inducing minors. It was stated

SKS,J Crl.P.No.10044 OF 2024

that the said minors were immediately sent to Government

Homes.

3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police registered a

case and upon completion of due investigation, a charge

sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offences

punishable under Sections 42 read with 41 of JJ Act.

Aggrieved thereby, this criminal petition is filed.

4. Heard Sri Tupakula Nikhil, learned counsel for

petitioner/accused, and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondents.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the

Police had proceeded against the petitioner without there

being any iota of evidence and truth. He contended that

neither the contents of FIR., nor the contents of charge sheet

would ex facie disclose any specific set of allegations against

the petitioner in order to attract the offences as alleged. He

lamented that there are absolutely no ingredients to attract

Section 41 read with 42 of JJ Act, and averred that bare

glance of Section 41(1) of JJ Act would disclose that in the

event of any institution housing a "child in conflict with

SKS,J Crl.P.No.10044 OF 2024

law", as defined under Section 2(13) of JJ Act, or a "child in

need of due care and protection", such institution shall

the minor children who were sent to Government Homes

were living in hostels with the consent of their parents and

relatives, as such, in no instance, any illegal activity was

being carried out in the premises of the organization.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner incessantly contended

that as per the contents of the FIR., and charge sheet there

are no triable issues in the matter, as such, initiating

proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law.

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

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Mehra Vs. State

(NCT Delhi) and Another 1. Therefore, prayed this Court

allow the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings

initiated against the petitioner.

7. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,

vehemently opposed the contentions made by learned

counsel for petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was

AIR 2013 SC 506

SKS,J Crl.P.No.10044 OF 2024

involved in running an organization in an unofficial manner

by name "Vatsalya Voluntary Organization", where he

exploited minor children for working in the organization. He

asserted that 23 children were rescued by respondent No.2 in

his rescue operation who were forced to work in his

organization as his helpers. While advocating that there are

serious allegations against the petitioner, he prayed this

Court to dismiss the criminal petition as the matter requires

full-fledged trial.

8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on

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

the allegations leveled against the petitioner are that he was

running an organization by name "Vatsalya Voluntary

Organization" where the respondent No.2 on obtaining

requisite official orders conducted a rescue operation and

found 23 minor children who were allegedly exploited in the

said organization by the petitioner so as to engage them as

his helpers, whereas, it is the specific stand of learned

counsel for the petitioner that minor children who were sent

to Government Homes were living in hostels with the consent

of their parents and relatives and that no illegalities as

SKS,J Crl.P.No.10044 OF 2024

averred in the complaint were in presence in the premises of

the organization.

9. Meticulous perusal of the record would reveal that

though it is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that

children were present in the premises of organization with

permission of their parents/relatives, it is an admitted fact

that the respondent No.2 conducted rescue operation and

found 23 minor children in the premises of the organization

run by petitioner.

10. 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 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh 2,

whereunder, in paragraph No.10 it was categorically held as

below:

2023 SCC OnLine SC 379

SKS,J Crl.P.No.10044 OF 2024

"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

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

SKS,J Crl.P.No.10044 OF 2024

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."

11. 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 3, 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

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

SKS,J Crl.P.No.10044 OF 2024

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."