Konda Prashanth Reddy, v. The State Of Telangana,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10270 OF 2017 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to quash the proceedings in Crime No.82 of 2017 of Deverkadra P.S., Mahaboobnagar District, for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), registered on the basis of the report lodged by Sri K.Srikanth Yadav, S/o.K.Yerranna. The main grounds urged in this petition are that (a) the petitioner-accused No.

1 was implicated falsely due to political grudge because of his development; (b) the de facto complainant does not disclose the details as to who drove the vehicle and who uttered the words; (c) at best the allegations would attract an offence punishable under Section 326 or 337 or 338 IPC but not 307 IPC; and (d) that if the case is tried by Magistrate, he will have a chance of appeal before the District Court in the event of conviction but on account of trial by the Sessions Judge, he is going to lose the chance of appeal before the Sessions Court and therefore, requested this Court to quash the proceedings in Crime No.82 of 2017 of Deverkadra P.S., Mahaboobnagar District.

complainant and on the strength of the allegations, he contended that in the absence of any details, the police cannot be permitted to investigate into the crime and none of the allegations would attract the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC before reiterating the other grounds referred supra. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana contended that to constitute an offence causing an injury with intention to kill is sufficient and second paragraph of the report discloses that the persons in the jeep chased the de facto complainant with an intention to kill him while he was riding the motor cycle and therefore, this allegation is sufficient to attract an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and prays to dismiss the petition.

In view of the grounds urged before this Court by Sri Vamseedhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to extract the relevant allegations made in the report and the scanned copy of the same is as follows:

The allegations made in the report lodged with the police by the de facto complainant clearly discloses that the petitioner along with others by name Konda Prashanth Reddy, Konda Ravi Kanth Reddy and Putta Chandramouli and others chased the bullet motor cycle of the defacto complainant while he was proceeding in a specific direction and hit the motor cycle from the rear side, with an intention to kill him and when he fell down, all the persons raised accelerator and while looking at the petitioner abused him in filthy language as extracted above. The other allegations in the second page of the complaint in vernacular would disclose that the petitioner and others chased the de facto complainant while he was riding bullet motor cycle on road side with an intention to kill him.

Therefore, these allegations are sufficient to constitute an offence. The contention of the petitioner is that he was falsely implicated due to different reasons and such question cannot be decided while deciding an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The other contention raised before this Court is that the report lodged with the police is silent regarding the details as to who drove the vehicle as referred to supra. More over, the report is silent as to name of the driver of the jeep and who uttered the words referred to supra but that by itself is not a ground to quash the proceedings exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

limited purpose under Section 152 of the Evidence Act but not a substantive piece of evidence. It is also settled law that FIR need not contain minute details. Therefore, the Court cannot quash the proceedings when details are lacking at the foetus stage of investigation.

The other contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that at best the allegations would attract an offence punishable under Section 326 or 337 or 338 IPC and if the charge sheet is filed before the Magistrate having jurisdiction, he will have an opportunity of filing an appeal before the Sessions Court and if it is tried and decided by an Assistant Sessions Judge, he will lose a chance of appeal before the District Court.

Undoubtedly, the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is triable by the Assistant Sessions Judge. If, for any reason, the Assistant Sessions Judge found the petitioner guilty of an offence under Section 326 or 337 or 338 IPC, the Assistant Sessions Judge may impose punishment and against such judgment an appeal lies to the District Judge. Therefore, losing the chance of appeal before the Sessions Court is not a ground to quash the proceedings. In view of my foregoing discussion, none of the grounds raised before this Court are sufficient to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage that too

investigation in this case is not yet commenced and in such case, this Court cannot decide the provision under which the offence falls. In Ghanshyam Sharma v. Surendra Kumar Sharma1, the Apex Court held that the High Court cannot decide the provision under which the offence falls; it may be under the provisions cited in the impugned charge sheet or under the provision High Court felt was attracted, but it is for the trial Court to decide that on the evidence produced before it.

Admittedly, investigation is not yet commenced and in such case, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo2, it is held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised by the High Court to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court, being the highest Court of State, 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 magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. The same principle was laid down in Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana3.

1 (2014)13 SCC 401 2 (2005)13 SCC 540 : 2006(2) ALT (Crl.) 16 3 (1977)4 SCC 451 : AIR 1977 SC 2229

In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgments stated supra, I find no grounds to quash the proceedings at this foetus stage of investigation. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed. ___________________________________ (M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J) 7th November 2017 RRB