Telangana High Court
Potluri Krishna Mohan vs The State Of Telangana on 30 November, 2020
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5036 OF 2020
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in Crime No.256 of 2020 pending on the file of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Ranga Reddy district. The petitioners herein are Accused Nos.1 to 7 in the said crime. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 147, 148, 332, 427 r/w 149 I.P.C., Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and Sections 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act.
2. Heard Sri D.V.Sitharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Mohd.Abdul Qader, learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. The allegations against the petitioners are that on 9.10.2020 at about 19.00 hours, a complaint was received from the 2nd respondent-Inspector of Police, SOT, Bhongir, Rachakonda Commissionerate, in which he has stated that he has received credible information about illegal blasting of rocks at the venture belonging to first petitioner/A1 situated at Survey No.14, Nerrapally village. Accordingly, on 9.10.2020 at 14.00 hours, the complainant along with his staff went to the above said venture by his Bolero vehicle 2 bearing Registration No.TS 09 PA 4493 and after checking in the said venture, he found one compressor tractor AP 26 AM 1217 being used for blasting and eight more compressor tractors parked in the venture. Then he started enquiring about those compressor tractors, meanwhile first petitioner who is the owner of the said venture came to the complainant and obstructed the complainant from discharging his duty. It is further alleged in the complaint dated 9.10.2020 that when the complainant's staff took A1 into the above said Bolero vehicle, then A1 and his followers about 25 members all together bet the Constables i.e. PC-6831 and PC-7864 with hands, deterring them from discharging their duty, damaged the said Bolero vehicle and escaped from there. On enquiry, the complainant came to know the names of some of the above persons as Accused. Thus, the 2nd respondent has requested to take action as per law.
4. Based on the said complaint, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.256 of 2020 for the above said offences. During the course of investigation, the Enquiry Officer has recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 to 5. They have visited the scene of offence and conducted seizure panchanama and seized one Detonator, connecting wire, Compressor Tractor AP 26 AM 1217 from the scene of offence. Then found A8 to A10 who were working at the scene of offence and the 3 remaining accused persons i.e. A1 to A7 were found absconding.
5. The above stated facts would reveal that the petitioners herein have obstructed the 2nd respondent-Inspector of Police, SOT, Bhongir from discharging his duty, damaging the public property and escaped from the scene of offence. The Police have seized one detonator, connecting wire and compressor tractor from the scene of offence.
6. Sri D.V.Sitharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners would submit that the first petitioner is the owner of land admeasuring Ac.5.00 in Survey Nos.14/1, 14/2A, 14/3, 14/4, 14/5 (A to E) of Nerrapalli village, Ibrahimpatnam mandal. He made an application on 27.8.2020 to the Tahsildar seeking permission for blasting. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam mandal vide proceedings dated 27.8.2020 informed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ibrahimpatnam Division that the total extent of Survey No.14 is Ac.181-00 of Nerrapalli village and is covered with hill rock area and some of the pattadars are cultivating the said land and it is about 1 ½ k.m. to 2 k.m. away to the village. There is no permanent structure existing in the said land. By referring the said proceedings, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the subject land is 1½ k.m. to 2 k.m. away 4 to the village and there is no permanent structure and there is no inherent probability of loss of any life.
7. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioners are lacking in the complaint dated 9.10.2020. The Police have implicated the petitioners herein with ulterior motives. The first petitioner herein has made a complaint to the Director General of Police, State of Telangana on 9.10.2020, informing about the illegal action of Police and also complaining about the interference of Police officials in civil disputes at the instance of local Sarpanch, who is demanding an amount of Rs.1.00 crore from the petitioners herein. Despite receiving the said complaint, no action has been taken. Learned Senior Counsel has also referred to proceedings dated 2.11.2020 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ibrahimpatnam Division to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy district stating that he has inspected the subject land i.e. land admeasuring Ac.5.00 guntas in Survey Nos.14/1, 14/2A, 14/3, 14/4, 14/5 (A to E) of Nerrapalli village on 28.10.2020 along with Tahsildar and Girdhawar, Ibrahimpatnam mandal and noticed that the land in Survey No.14 is classified as patta land with a total extent of Ac.181-10 guntas, out of which patta land is Ac.116-10 guntas and remaining land admeasuring Ac.65-00 guntas recorded as ceiling land of Nerrapally village. The subject land comes in patta land 5 portion and located at 2.5 k.m. away from Nerrapally village. By referring the same, the Revenue Divisional Officer has recommended for issuance of NOC for control blasting works in the above said land from 7.00 p.m to 9.00 p.m. and 4.00 a.m. to 5.00 a.m. without causing any disturbance to cattle and other animals.
8. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Inspector of Police, SOT, Bhongir is not having jurisdiction to investigate into the matter and he has no right or authority to go to the site. At the most he has to inform/lodge complaint to the local police. Instead of doing so, he went to the site illegally. He submits that the Police have implicated the petitioners herein in the present case. He would further submit that the first petitioner has received good citizen award from the Commissioner of Police in the year 2011. There are no witnesses to the alleged incident. Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rashmi Chopra v. State of U.P.1, Ankush Maruti Shinde and others v. State of Maharashtra2, D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal3 and A.Omkar v. The Commissioner and others4. By placing reliance on the above said judgments, the learned Senior Counsel sought to quash the proceedings in Crime No.256 of 2020.
1(2020) 1 SCC Crl.286 2 (2020) 1 SCC Crl.315 3 1997(1) ALD Crl.248 (SC) 4 1997(1) ALT Crl.63 DB (AP) 6
9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the Commissioner of Police has power to constitute Special Teams including SOT under Section 36 of Cr.P.C. In many cases, local police are colluding with culprits and not taking any effective steps to curb the illegal activities. Therefore, the Commissioner of Police have constituted Special Teams by invoking power under Section 36 of Cr.P.C. for taking necessary action against the illegal activities of culprits. On receipt of credible information, the 2nd respondent went to the subject land and found one compressor tractor AP 26 AM 1217 being used for blasting and also found eight more compressor tractors parked in the venture. On enquiry, it came to know that the first petitioner/A1 is owner of the said venture. Thereafter, first petitioner came there and obstructed the 2nd respondent and his staff from discharging their duty and damaged Bolero vehicle and bet the Constables and escaped from the site. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has lodged the complaint with the local police, who inturn registered the same as C rime No.256 of 2020 for the above said offences. It is at crime stage. Police are investigating into the matter and collecting evidence. The 2nd respondent-Inspector of Police, SOT, Bhongir is having jurisdiction to conduct inspection and seize the property etc. Therefore, on receipt of credible information, 2nd respondent went to the venture. There are serious allegations leveled against the petitioners herein. They are 7 conducting blasting without any permission. One detonator, connecting wire and Compressor Tractor were seized under seizure panchanama. Thus, there are several allegations against the petitioners. The petitioners, instead of cooperating with the Police, are trying to interdict the investigation. With the said submissions, the learned Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the petition.
10. The above stated facts would reveal that the first petitioner is the owner of land admeasuring Ac.5.00 in Survey Nos.14/1, 14/2A, 14/3, 14/4, 14/5 (A to E) of Nerrapalli village, Ibrahimpatnam mandal. He has applied for NOC to conduct control blasting works in the said land on 27.8.2020. The same was under process. The Revenue Divisional Officer has recommended for issuance of NOC on 2.11.2020. So far NOC is not issued to the first petitioner for the purpose of conducting blasting works. Thus, the said facts would reveal that there is no permission/NOC from the competent authority to first petitioner to conduct blasting works in the said land. Even then, first petitioner/A1 started blasting works in the said land. One detonator, connecting wire and compressor tractor were seized from the scene of offence. The said facts would reveal that there are serious allegations of conducting blasting by the petitioners herein without prior permission/NOC from the competent authority. There are also serious allegations of obstructing the 2nd respondent and 8 his staff from discharging their duty by the petitioners herein. They have also damaged the Bolero vehicle of 2nd respondent and they have assaulted the Constables and escaped from the site. Thus, there are serious allegations against the petitioners herein. There are several factual matrix which are to be investigated by the Investigating Officer including the fact as to ownership of land by first petitioner, ownership of compressor tractor AP 26 AM 1217 and also damage caused to Bolero vehicle. The matter is at crime stage and the Police are investigating into the matter. They are collecting the evidence and recording the statements of witnesses including material witnesses.
11. As discussed supra, one detonator, connecting wire and compressor tractor were seized from the scene of offence. Whether the 2nd respondent is having jurisdiction or not is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, whether the complaint lacks ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioners is also a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. The learned Senior Counsel by referring to Sections 147, 148, 332, 427 r/w 149 I.P.C. would submit that the contents of the complaint are lacking the ingredients of the said offences. He has referred to Sections 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act and submit that since the subject land is 1 ½ k.m. to 2 k.m. away from Nerrapalli village, there is no permanent structure, 9 and therefore, there is no inherent probability of endanger to life of any human being and therefore the allegations against the petitioners herein are false and baseless. It is a politically motivated case. With the said submissions, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Police have implicated the petitioners in a false case.
12. As discussed supra, the complaint allegations made against the petitioners have to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, deals with punishment for causing explosion likely to endanger life or property and as per which, any person who unlawfully and maliciously causes by any explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property shall, whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment of either description which shall not be less than ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; or any special category explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property shall, whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be punished with imprisonment as mentioned thereunder.
13. As stated above, whether the Accused have committed the offence or not is a matter to be investigated. One detonator, connecting wire and Compressor Tractor were 10 seized from the scene of offence. Thus, the petitioners possess the same. Whether the petitioners have committed offence under Section 147 and also 332 of IPC is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. As stated above, whether the petitioners have damaged the Bolero vehicle is also a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer by recording the statement and by collecting evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra5 has categorically held that quashing criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court to quash same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for High Court to interfere. The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at threshold. At that stage, only question relevant was whether averments in complaint 5 AIR 2019 SC 847 11 spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that were alleged against Respondents. Correctness or otherwise of said allegations had to be decided only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.
14. In view of the said authoritative pronouncement of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as discussed supra, there are specific allegations/overt-acts against the petitioners herein. There are several factual matrix to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. The contents of the complaint dated 9.10.2020 alleged by the 2nd respondent would prima facie made out ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioners herein. Therefore, interdicting the proceedings in Crime No.256 of 2020 is unwarranted. The petitioners failed to make out a case for quashing the above crime. The Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 12
As a sequel, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 30.11.2020 DA