Telangana High Court

Kamapalli Nagala Reddy Varun vs The State Of Telangana on 11 November, 2024

      THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.6161 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.1

in Cr.No.399 of 2024 dated 02.04.2024 before Madhapur

Police Station, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District, registered

for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 448, 342,

323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

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

No.2/de facto complainant, lodged a complaint against the

petitioner stating that she got acquainted with him in her

workplace where after a while the petitioner proposed her to

which she responded with an acceptance and with a view to

marry each other they got intimated physically for couple of

times. Later, when she got vexed with the behavior of

petitioner, she maintained distance with him due to which

he began to harass her mentally by calling her several times.

Aggrieved thereby, she lodged a complaint against him

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6161 OF 2024

before Raidurgam Police Station and left to Dubai, due to

which the petitioner began to blackmail her stating that he

would post their intimate photos and videos in social media

so as to defame her. Due to unbearable torture, the

respondent No.2 compromised the case that was registered

against petitioner. It was further stated that on 11.01.2024

when respondent No.2 was in deep grief of the death of her

father, the petitioner arrived at her flat and abused her

verbally and also harassed her physically by raping her and

by vigorously scratching her private parts but due to hues

and cries of respondent No.2, he feared arrival of neighbors

and left her flat.

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

a case against the petitioner, arraying him as accused No.1

for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 448, 342,

323 and 506 of IPC. Aggrieved thereby, this criminal petition

is filed.

4. Heard Sri Kalyan Dileep Sunkara, learned counsel for

petitioner/accused No.1, and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6161 OF 2024

No.1 - State. None appeared for respondent No.2/de facto

complainant.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that even if

the allegations leveled against the petitioner are taken in

entirety, no offence, as alleged against him would constitute.

He contended that the averments of the complaint are

completely based on false plot and it was the respondent

No.2 who cheated petitioner by marrying two other persons.

He lamented that admittedly, the respondent No.2 had

compromised the earlier complaint that was filed against the

petitioner and thereafter, she filed the complaint that is

under challenge, but it is to be noticed that there are ample

of differences in the facts narrated in both complaints and

the same would depict the mala fide intentions of

respondent No.2 to harass the petitioner. He asserted that

petitioner is a law abiding innocent citizen who got trapped

by respondent No.2 and her false tactics which is hugely

affecting his career. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the

criminal petition, quashing the proceedings initiated against

the petitioner.

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6161 OF 2024

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,

strongly opposed the contentions made by learned counsel

for petitioner and submitted that the allegations leveled

against the petitioner would amount to serious offence and

as the matter is at the stage of investigation, quashing of

proceedings initiated against the petitioner would cause

grave prejudice and injustice to respondent No.2. Therefore,

prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on

perusing the material placed on record, it is noted that the

allegations leveled against the petitioner are that he has

harassed and abused respondent No.2 on several occasions

and on 11.01.2024 he entered the flat of respondent No.2

and tortured her stating that he would show her the grudge

of a man and raped her, whereas, it is the stand of

petitioner that all the allegations leveled against him are

false and baseless and are averred only with an intention to

harass him and that it is the respondent No.2 herself who is

at fault and had cheated on him.

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6161 OF 2024

8. 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 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

2023 SCC OnLine SC 379

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6161 OF 2024

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 further against the accused for

which the accused is required to be tried or

not."

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

mention that to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6161 OF 2024

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 before the Court and the

issues involved, whether factual or legal, are

of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6161 OF 2024

their true perspective without sufficient

material."