Telangana High Court
Dandugula Mohan vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 7 June, 2022
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2232 of 2020
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), to quash the proceedings in Crime No.138 of 2020 pending on the file of Tukaramgate Police Station, Hyderabad. The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.18 of 2020 of Tukaramgate Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner herein are under Sections 189 and 353 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record.
3. As per the complaint dated 12.05.2020, the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein are as follows :
The second respondent was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Tukaramgate Police Station at the relevant point of time. On the instructions of Station House Officer, Tukaramgate Police Station, the 2nd respondent along with three police constables KL,J CRL.P_2232_2020 :2: bearing P.C.Nos.7079, 2492 and 5157 went to lift five unknown persons i.e. Raju, Laddu, Kiran, Manikanta and Chintu, who are residents of Vadderabasthi, who committed offence near Gundu Hanuman Temple. On enquiry, they came to know that two of them are sons of the petitioner herein, a Rowdy Sheeter Vaddera Mohan. Therefore, the 2nd respondent along with his staff reached the spot to lift the sons of petitioner herein. The petitioner came outside, informed the 2nd respondent and others that his sons are not available at home. He has questioned that why they have come to his house at that particular point of time and also warned and threatened them with dire consequences. The petitioner herein has also warned the 2nd respondent saying "SI aithe bhayapadala meeku emaina kommulu unnaya nannu rechagottaddu. Patha Mohan aithe meeru thattukoleru". Thus, the petitioner herein has obstructed the 2nd respondent and his staff from discharging their regular duties and thus, the petitioner herein, a Rowdy Sheeter, has committed the aforesaid offences.
4. Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the police have implicated the petitioner herein in the present false case keeping in mind the KL,J CRL.P_2232_2020 :3: disputes the petitioner has with the police. Though a Rowdy Sheet was opened against the petitioner, many of the cases registered against him were already closed either by way of compromise or on conducting of trial. Order of detention dated 23.04.2021, passed by Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City was set aside by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2022 in W.P.No.14677 of 2021. Further, he would submit that in view of the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the petitioner herein, the Investigating Officer has to invoke procedure laid down under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and also the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar1. With the said submissions, he sought to quash the proceedings in Crime No.138 of 2020, pending on the file of Tukaramgate Police Station.
5. It is also relevant to note that this Court vide order dated 26.05.2020 granted interim stay of all further proceedings 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 KL,J CRL.P_2232_2020 :4: as prayed for till 25.06.2020. The same was extended from time to time.
6. Inspector of Police, Tukaramgate Police Station has filed counter in vacate stay petition stating that the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein are serious and they are specific allegations. He is a Rowdy Sheeter. He has obstructed the 2nd respondent and his staff from discharging their official duties. During course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 5, in view of the interim order granted by this Court. The Investigating Officer is not in a position to complete the investigation. The petitioner herein is an habitual offender and he was involved in 28 cases and a Rowdy Sheet was also opened against him in Tukaramgate Police Station. He also furnished a list of cases, in which the petitioner was involved along with the said counter affidavit. The same is as under :
Sl. Crime number Police station Stage of the No. case 1 Cr.No.67/1996 U/S 324 IPC Tukaramgate Compromised Lok Adalath 2 Cr.No.49/1997 U/S 324 IPC Tukaramgate Compromised r/w 34 IPC Lok Adalath KL,J CRL.P_2232_2020 :5: 3 Cr.No.52/2001 Tukaramgate Lack of evidence U/S 147,353,506 IPC 4 Cr.No.91/03 U/S 324 & 354 Tukaramgate Mistake of fact IPC 5 Cr.No.139/04 U/S 354, 324 Tukaramgate Compromised r/w 34 1PC 6 Cr.No.29/06 U/s Tukaramgate Acquitted 48,452,454,427,353 & 149 IPC and Section 7 of Crl.
Amendment Act of 1932
7 Cr.No.221/07 U/S 302, 363 Tukaramgate Acquitted r/w 34 IPC 8 Cr.No.93/2006 U/S 448 & Chikkadpally Lack of evidence 506 IPC 9 Cr.No. 151/06 U/S 147, Pahadisharief Acquitted 148, 302, 120-B IPC r/w 149 IPC and 25 I.A. Act.
10 Cr.No.118/2006 U/S Chilakalaguda Compromised 147,148,364-A,506,324 IPC Lok Adalat 11 Cr.No.360/04 U/S 365 IPC Gandhi Nagar Acquitted 12 Cr.No.50/09 U/S 107(e) Tukaramgate Bound over Cr.P.C.
13 Cr.No.151/2009 U/S 107(e) Tukaramgate Bound over Cr.P.C 14 Cr.No.88/2012 U/S Tukaramgate Lack of evidence 427,447, 384,506 IPC 15 Cr. No. 103/2012 U/s 107 Tukaramgate Bound over Cr.PC 16 Cr.No.52/2013 U/S 41(a)/ Tukaramgate Bound over 107 Cr.P.C.
17 Cr. No 140/2013 U/s 384, Tukaramgate Bound over 511, 506 IPC and Section 3 and 5 of AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.
18 Cr.No.191/13 U/s 427, 506 Tukaramgate Lack of evidence IPC 19 Cr.No.5/14 U/s 323, 506 Tukaramgate Compromised IPC 20 Cr.No.20/15 U/s.324 IPC Tukaramgate PT CC No.543 /2015 21 Cr.No.172/16 U/s.107 Tukaramgate Bound over Cr.P.C KL,J CRL.P_2232_2020 :6: 22 Cr.No.23/17 U/s.420, 406 Tukaramgate Compromised IPC and 156(3) Cr.P.C.
23 Cr.No.113/17 U/s.447, 427, Tukaramgate Compromised 506 IPC 24 Cr.No.121/18 U/s.107 Tukaramgate Bound over Cr.P.C 25 Cr.No.138/20 U/s.189, 353 Tukaramgate Stay by High IPC Court 26 Cr.No.169/20 U/s.341, 324, Tukaramgate PT vide CC 427, 506, 109 r/w.34 IPC No.117/2021 27 Cr.No.179/20 U/s.353, 332, Tukaramgate PT vide CC 188, 189 r/w.34 IPC No.259/2020 28 Cr.No.187/2020 U/s.386, Tukaramgate UI / Collection 420, 417, 342, 504, 468, of handwritings. 471, 506, 509 IPC, Sec 52(1) (B) of Arms Act 29 Cr.No.259/2020 U/s.406, Tukaramgate CC awaited 420, 386, 342, 506 IPC and Sec 25(1)(B) of Arms Act 30 Cr.No.263/2020 U/s.420, Tukaramgate UI / High Court 384, 506 IPC order 31 Cr.No.264/2020 U/s.324, Tukaramgate Quashed 341, 506 r/w.34 IPC
7. The above stated facts would reveal that prima-facie there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. He has threatened the 2nd respondent and his staff by uttering the above said words. He has also warned them. The date, time, place and also the language used by the petitioner herein is specifically mentioned in the complaint dated 17.05.2020. It is also relevant to note that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the 2nd respondent as LW1, KL,J CRL.P_2232_2020 :7: P.C.No.2492 as LW2, P.C.No.7079 as LW3 and P.C. No.5157 as LW4 and also the statements of V.Shiva Kumar, resident of Vadderabasthi, Tukaramgate as LW5. All of them have spoken about the above said facts and also the threat and warning given by the petitioner herein and also with regard to obstruction of duties of the 2nd respondent and his staff. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner herein was involved in the above said 31 cases. The above said table would reveal that in some of the cases, the petitioner herein was acquitted and some of the cases were compromised in Lok Adalat. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner herein is in the habit of involving in cases, threatening the witnesses/complainants and getting the matters compromised or acquitted. Though the detention order was set aside on technicalities, the Rowdy Sheet pending against the petitioner herein is being continued and maintained by the Police of Tukaramgate.
8. The above stated facts would reveal that the contents of the complaint dated 12.05.2020 constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. Several factual aspects including the allegations made by the 2nd respondent in the complaint dated KL,J CRL.P_2232_2020 :8: 12.05.2020 needs investigation. Admittedly, Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of five witnesses and all of them spoke about the threat given by the petitioner and his obstructing the 2nd respondent and his staff from attending their duties. In a matter like this more particularly considering the fact that the petitioner herein is a Rowdy Sheeter, who was involved in 31 cases, scuttling the investigation at the threshold is not warranted. The said principle was also held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra2. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh3 Hon'ble the Apex Court referring to the earlier judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution. In view of the above said discussion, this is not a rarest of rare case where this Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of 2 . AIR 2021 SC 1918 3 . AIR 2021 SC 931 KL,J CRL.P_2232_2020 :9: Cr.P.C. Viewed from any angle, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.
___________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J June 7th, 2022 abb