Eluka Akhil vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 2413 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2413 Tel
Judgement Date : 20 February, 2025

Telangana High Court

Eluka Akhil vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 20 February, 2025

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.4898 OF 2022

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the

petitioner/accused No.34 to quash the proceedings

against him in C.C.No.917 of 2020, pending on the file of

Judicial Magistrate of First Class (PCR) Special Mobile

Court, Karimnagar.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.11.2019,

around 12:15 hours, while respondent No.2 was on

night duty in the BC-4 area, heard the sound of crackers

and reached Aditya Apartment near Vedam School,

Ramnagar, where it is found a group led by Boini Lavan

Kumar blocking the road with cars, playing loud music,

dancing, drinking alcohol, cutting a cake, setting off

fireworks, and taking pictures with prohibited swords.

The respondent No.2 informed the said group people

that setting off fireworks at night was prohibited and EVV,J CRLP_4898_2022

instructed them to leave, but they continued the

nuisance. When respondent No.2 started recording their

actions, Boini Lavan Kumar and others obstructed him,

used force, and injured his right hand. After creating a

huge nuisance, the said group people left around 01:00

hours. Based on the complaint, the respondent No.1

registered the crime and after completion of

investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet against

accused Nos.1 to 8, 10 to 14, and 16 to 31, for the

offences punishable under Section 143, 332, 353, 341,

188, 290 read with 149 of the IPC. Thereafter, based on

the confessional statements made by the panchas i.e.,

Sri B.Venkatesh and Sri G.Prakash, a supplementary

charge sheet was filed including petitioner Nos. 9, 15,

17, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 and the same is pending

before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (PCR)

Special Mobile Court, Karimnagar.

EVV,J CRLP_4898_2022

3. Heard Sri K. Karuna Sagar, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a

supplementary charge sheet was filed with an inordinate

delay of 11 months by implicating the petitioner in the

present case solely based on the confessional statements

of panchas and co-accused. He further submits that

though the petitioner's name was neither mentioned in

the initial complaint nor at the time of filing the first

charge sheet, his name was astonishingly appeared in

the supplementary charge sheet. Hence, he prayed this

Court to against the proceeding against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner stating that there are

serious allegations against the petitioner as per the EVV,J CRLP_4898_2022

confession of the other accused. He further submitted

that the case requires trial for eliciting the true facts of

the case. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the

Criminal Petition.

6. In view of the rival submissions made by both the

parties, this Court has perused the material available on

record. It is apparent that the supplementary charge

sheet was filed with an inordinate delay of 11 months

solely based on the confession statements and

co-accused statements in the absence of any material

evidence before the trial Court to establish the presence

of the petitioner. It is noteworthy that nothing has been

specifically mentioned in the charge sheet to

substantiate the petitioner's role. Pertinently, there is

no incriminating evidence to prove the petitioner's

involvement in the alleged crime.

EVV,J CRLP_4898_2022

7. At this stage, it is relevant to note that the

observations made by the Apex Court in State of

Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal 1, whereunder the

following categories were illustrated, wherein the

extraordinary power under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India or the inherent powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court

to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or

otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The said

categories are extracted as under:

"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

1992 supp (1) SCC 335 EVV,J CRLP_4898_2022

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.

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."

8. This Court, having respectful agreement with the

view taken by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment,

is of the considered opinion that even if the trial is

conducted, no purpose would be served as there are no

other specific allegations against the petitioner.

EVV,J CRLP_4898_2022

Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner are

liable to be quashed.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is Allowed and

the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.34 in

C.C.No.917 of 2020 pending on the file of Judicial First

Class Magistrate,(PCR) Special Mobile Court, Karimngar