High Court for State of TelanganaCRLP/5455/2020partly allowed no costs

T. Jayaprakash Reddy v. Sri P.Laxma Reddy

2020-12-10Shameem Akther7 pages

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5455 OF 2020 Between:

1. T. Jayaprakash Reddy, S/o T.Jagga Reddy, Aged about 52 years,OCC tr/LA, R/o. H.No 2-6-131 , Ramnagar, Sanga Reddy, Medak District

2. T.Nirmala Jagga Reddy, W/oT. Jayaprakash Reddy, Aged about 47 years, OCC House Wife, R/0 H.No 2-6-131 , Ramnagar, Sanga Reddy, Medak District,

3. Julakanti Anjaneyullu, S/o Shivaiah, Aged about 48 years,OCC Business, R/O Cherlyal Village, KandalMandal Sanga Reddy, Medak District.

4. Kurma Santosh Kumar, S/o Durgaiah Aged about 32 years, OCC Business, R/O H.No 6-6-125/5, ShivajiNagar,Sanga Reddy, Medak District.

5. Rudraram KiranGoud, S/o SudhakarGoud, Aged about 36 years, OCC Business, R/0 H.No 5-1-32110, SaiNagar, Sanga Reddy, Medak District.

6. Mukurala SrikanthGoud, S/o SathayaNaraynaGoud Aged about 45 years, OCC Business, R/O H.No 4-6-'156/4, Ramnagar, Sanga Reddy, Medak District

7. Ch. Buchramulu, S/o Narender Aged about 32 years, OCC Business, R/OlrigipallyVilage, Sanga Reddy, Ir/edak District

8. Ayilreddygarl Balavanth Reddy, S/o Manik Reddy Aged about 26 years, OCC Student , FVO H.No 4-7-315, BaialajlNagar,Sanga Reddy, Medak District.

9. Smt Anusuya, W/O Bhaskar, Aged about 33 years, OCC House Wife , R/O It4anjaeeraNagar,Sanga Reddy, Medak District. 10.Smt Saliaj, W/0 Venkateshwarlu, Aged about 43 years, OCC House Wife, Rl/O Sanga Reddy, Medak District.

11.J.Sujatha, W/O Joseph, Aged about 43 years, OCC House Wife, R/0 Sanga Reddy, Medak District.

l2.Gundelwar Mahesh, S/o Satyanarayana Aged about 33 years, OCC Business, R/O H.No 5-1-32110, SaiNagar, Sanga Reddy. Medak District., 13.Uggu Sathish, S/o Mallalah Aged about 30 years, OCC Business, fuO H.No 5-133/B/A, Sal Nagar, Sanga Reddy, Medak District,

14. Kotagirl Arjun, S/o Prasad Aged about 30 years, OCC Business, R/O H.No 4-4-'1 , lndira Nagar, Sanga Reddy, Medak District.

l5.Gangari Mahesh, S/0 Manikayam Aged about 31 years, OCC Business, Rl/O H.No3-3-150/9/4, Babanagar, Sanga Reddy, Medak District. ...PETITIONEFYACCUSED NO.1 to 15 AND

1. Sri P.Laxma Reddy, Sub -lnspector of Police, Sanga Reddy Town Police station.

2. The state of retangana, Represented o, n, ,ro,,. rr]L"Jrt"rl;;^t;;:':l'"" Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings against the Petitioners in CC No 37 of 2019 on the file of the Hon'ble Special Sessions Judge for IVP and MLA Court at Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceeding against the Petitioners in CC No 37 of 20'19 on the file of the Hon'ble Special Sessions Judge for MP& MLA Court at Hyderabad pending disposal of the main case.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.SURENDER, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and 2.

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.5455 OF 2O2O

ORDER

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), is filed by the petitioners/A1 to A15, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.37 of 2019 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for MP & MLA Court at Hyderabad, wherein charges are framed for the offences punishable under Sections 142, 143,341 and 1BB read with 149 of IPC.

2, Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/Al to A15, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State/respondents and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no requisite complaint is filed as required under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 1BB of IPC. Furthermore, there is no material at all and there are no ingredients to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 142, 143,341 and 1BB read with 149 of IPC. The Court below erroneously framed charges against the petitioners/A1 to A15 for the oFfences punishable under Sections 142, 143,34L and 188 read with 149 of iPC. The persons, whose vehicles were wrongfully restrained, were not examined. The learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Kodela Siva Prasad Rao v. Koritala Venkata

') Ramanaiaht and ultimately, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.37 of 20L9 pending on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for MP & MLA Court at Hydera bad.

On the other hand, Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that admittedly, no requisite complaint in writing in terms of Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. was made. There are specific allegations against the petitioners/A1 to 415 with regard to the commission of offences punishable under Sections L42, 143, 341 and 1BB read with 149 of IPC. Therefore, the Court below had rightly framed the charges and proceeding with and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the criminal petition.

Having submitted for a considerable time, learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A15 would submit that without discussing the material on record elaborately, the charge framed against the petitioners/A1 to A15 for the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC only be quashed, in view of noncompliance of requirements under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. 6.

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A15, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case and pass a detailed order with regard to framing of charges for the offences punishable under Sections 142, 143 and 341 read with 149 of IPC.

' (2006(3) ALr (CRL) 49s

7. The Apex Court in Pankaj Aggarwal and others v. State of Delhi and others2 and Durgacharan Naik and others v. State of Orissa3 held that there shall be a written complaint by appropriate authority as required under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 1BB of IPC. Admittedly, in the instant case, no complaint was filed as required under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. Without there being such written complaint, cognizance was taken by the Court below for the oFfence punishable under Section 1BB of IPC along with other offences. Furthermore, charges were also framed against the petitioners/A1 to A15 for all the offences indicated above. The decision in Kodela Siva Prasad Rao's case (1 supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.

B. Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. mandates filing of a complaint in writing by a public servant and the police cannot register an FIR and investigate the case and thereafter file report, in case where the alleged offence is under Section 1BB of IPC. A complaint in writing by a public servant is essential for a Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence under Section 1BB of IPC. In the instant case, though the petitioners/accused are proceeded for the offence under Section 188 of IPC and also for the offences under Sections 142, 743 and 341 read with 149 of '?2001(4) scALE 235 ' ArR 1966 sc 1775

.1 IPC, the requirements under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C are requlred to be satisfied to take cognizance for the offence under Section 1BB of IPC. Admittedly, there is no complaint in writing by a public servant. Therefore, registration of FiR, filing of Final Report as well as taking cognizance of the offence under Section 1BB of lPC are unsustainable. So, the charge framed for the offence under Section 1BB of IPC is liable to be quashed. 9.

Accordingly, cognizance taken and the charge framed against the petitioners/A1 to A15 for the offence punishable under Section 1BB of IPC, are quashed. The Court below is entitled to proceed against the petitioners/A1 to A15 for the offences punishable under Sections 142, 743 and 341 read with 149 of IPC in accordance with law.

10, In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

Sd/.tM.RAIVlANA KRIS NA ASSISTANT REGI RAR ,TRUE COPYII To SECTION OFFICER The Special Sessions Judge, for tr/ P and IVLA Court at Hyderabad. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy. The Station House Officer, Sanga Reddy Police Station, Sanga Reddy District. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Teiangana, Hyderabad (ouT) One CC to Sri K.Surender, Advocate (OPUC) Two CD Copies 1.

HIGH COURT DATED:1011212020 I TA tr ( oo l ,19 t)EC 20if ,/ |-- i::.-.:

Jr { L.

ORDER

CRLP.No.5455 of 2020 Partly allowing the Crl.P.