Telangana High Court

Smt. B. Ramadevi vs The State Of Telangana on 5 November, 2024

      THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.6481 OF 2023

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 petitioners/accused Nos.1

and 2 in CC.No.3575 of 2023 on the file of the XIV Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 506 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

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

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

07.03.2023 on two occasions the petitioner No.1 broke the

door lock of the CCTV storage room and also disconnected

the WiFi of the security cameras. It was stated that the said

room was locked for security reasons and its access keys was

available only with the Managing Committee Member of the

building. On 08.03.2023 the door was repaired and cameras

were reactivated but on 09.03.2023 the petitioner Nos.1 and

2 attempted to tamper the door again. It was alleged that

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6481 OF 2023

petitioner No.1 had criminally trespassed the rest property by

parking her vehicle in the parking spots of other residents in

spite of notification of not to do so ; that petitioner No.2

parked her scooter in unauthorized common areas which

leads to causing security issues and extraneous expense to

respondent No.2 and other residents of the building ; that

petitioner No.2 also threatened the children of the building

and other ladies and abused them severely.

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

case and upon completion of due investigation, a charge

sheet was filed against the petitioners for the offences

punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 506 of IPC.

Aggrieved thereby, this criminal petition is filed.

4. Heard Sri P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned counsel for

petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondents

No.1 - State, and Sri Sharad Gupta, learned counsel for

respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the

petitioners are no way concerned with the alleged offences

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6481 OF 2023

and the respondent No.2 has dragged petitioners in false case

only with an intention to harass them. He further submitted

that respondent No.2 is a tenant of 1st floor and the other

witness is caretaker of 3rd floor and that except the family of

petitioners, no other owners or their families reside in 5th

floor of the building. He contended that it was respondent

No.2 who used to create trouble by parking his vehicle across

the bay, obstructing the way of petitioners and create

troubles. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the criminal

petition, quashing the proceedings initiated against the

petitioners.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and

learned counsel for respondent No.2, respectively, opposed

the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit

stating that the family of respondent No.2 had been victim of

torture and harassment by petitioners on one or the other

pretext. He contended that petitioners used to pass vulgar

comments on respondent No.2 and his family and also use

filthy language time and again, so as to abuse them. He

lamented that though there were a set of guidelines to be

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6481 OF 2023

followed by residents, the petitioners proceeded with

breaching into the security room by breaking the lock and

also disturbing the WiFi cables of security CCTV cameras.

Therefore, prayed this Court dismiss the criminal petition.

7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on

going through the material placed on record, it is to be noted

that the primary allegation leveled against the petitioners is

that on several occasions they abused respondent No.2 and

his family members and on 07.03.2023 and 09.03.2023 they

broke the door lock of the storage room and disconnected the

WiFi connection wires ; and that they park their vehicles in

the unauthorized common area , whereas, it is the specific

stand of petitioners that in spite of being innocent, they are

dragged in false cases by respondent No.2.

8. On perusing the record it is seen that at the time of

investigating the case, the statements of LWs.1 to 4 were

recorded who are the residents of the same apartment, who

stated that the storage room was locked for security reasons

and the access key was available only with the Managing

Committee Member of the building and even when the door

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6481 OF 2023

was repaired and cameras were re-activated, again an

attempt was made by the petitioners to tamper with the door

and cameras. It was further stated that the petitioners

parked their vehicles in unauthorized areas and also

threatened the children in the building and passing abusive

comments on the family of respondent No.2.

9. 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 1,

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

2023 SCC OnLine SC 379

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6481 OF 2023

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

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

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6481 OF 2023

further against the accused for which the

accused is required to be tried or not."

10. 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 2, 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

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6481 OF 2023

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."