Telangana High Court
Anumula Revanth Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 10 December, 2020
Author: Shameem Akther
Bench: Shameem Akther
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5771 OF 2020
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), is filed by the petitioner/accused, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.27 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kodangal, wherein charges are framed for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 188, 290, 506, 143 and 153(A) read with 149 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, the learned Public Prosecutor representing the respondents and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused 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 188 of IPC. Furthermore, there is no material at all and there are no ingredients to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 341, 188, 290, 506, 143 and 153(A) read with 149 of IPC. The Court below erroneously framed charges against the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 188, 290, 506, 143 and 153(A) 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 2 v. Koritala Venkata Ramanaiah1 and ultimately, prayed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.27 of 2020 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kodangal.
4. 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 petitioner/accused with regard to the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 188, 290, 506, 143 and 153(A) 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.
5. Having submitted for a considerable time, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that without discussing the material on record elaborately, the charge framed against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC only be quashed, in view of non-compliance 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 petitioner/accused, 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 341, 290, 506, 143 and 153(A) read with 149 of IPC.
7. The Apex Court in Pankaj Aggarwal and others v. State of Delhi and others2 and Durgacharan Naik and others v. 1 (2006(3) ALT (CRL) 495 3 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 188 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 188 of IPC along with other offences. Furthermore, charges were also framed against the petitioner/accused 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 petitioner, is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
8. 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 188 of IPC. A complaint in writing by a public servant is essential for a Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence under Section 188 of IPC. In the instant case, though the petitioner/accused is proceeded for the offence under Section 188 of IPC and also for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 290, 506, 143 and 153(A) read with 149 of IPC, the requirements under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C are required to be satisfied to take cognizance for the offence under Section 188 of IPC. Admittedly, 2 2001(4) SCALE 235 3 AIR 1966 SC 1775 4 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 188 of IPC are unsustainable. So the charge framed for the offence under Section 188 of IPC is liable to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, cognizance taken and the charge framed against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC are quashed. The Court below is entitled to proceed against the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 290, 506, 143 and 153(A) 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.
______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J Date: 10.12.2020 ssp