High Court for State of TelanganaCRLP/11858/2015dismissed

T.Padma v. The State Of Telangana

2015-11-16T.Sunil Chowdary2 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.11858 of 2015 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 and A2 in Crime No.293 of 2015 of Saidabad Police Station, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.

3. The petitioners are A1 and A2 and second respondent is de facto complainant in Crime No.293 of 2015. As per the allegations made in the complaint, on 24.8.2015 the petitioners insulted the second respondent by abusing her in the name of her caste in the presence of others.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is abnormal delay in lodging the complaint by the second respondent to the Police. Whether the second respondent has lodged the complaint to the Police with an evil motive would come to light during the course of investigation.

5. It is needless to say that the court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint while exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in order to quash the criminal proceedings at the initial stage of investigation. The court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry to ascertain the truthfulness, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. It is a settled principle of law that the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate investigation. If the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offence much less the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, then this court can quash the proceedings in order to prevent abuse of process of court thereby to secure the ends of justice.

6. I have carefully perused the allegations made in the complaint in order to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd

and inherently improbable thereby to quash the proceedings. The material available on record is prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in R.P.Kapoor v State of Punjab, State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, V.Y.Jose v State of Gurajat and Teeja Devi v State of Rajasthan, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the concerned Station House Officer may be directed not to arrest the petitioners during the pendency of the investigation. Taking into consideration the nature of the allegations made in the complaint and also the principle enunciated in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar, the Station House Officer, Saidabad Police Station, Hyderabad, is hereby directed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41A Cr.P.C., in Crime No.293 of 2015 so far as the petitioners/A1 and A2 are concerned.

9. With the above direction, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the criminal petition, shall stand closed. _________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J November 16, 2015.