Telangana High Court
Komireddy Linga Reddy And Another vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 13 October, 2020
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3229 OF 2020
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.216 of 2020 pending on the file of the Metpalli Police Station, Jagtial District. The petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 4 in the said Crime. The offences alleged against them are under Sections - 447, 427, 294 (b), 323 and 506 read with 34 of IPC, and also Sections - 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act').
2. Heard Mr. N. Krishna Sumanth, learned counsel for the petitioners - accused Nos.3 and 4, Mr. Komireddy Karam Chand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - de facto complainant, and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that contents of the complaint lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. There are no specific overt acts/allegations against the petitioners herein and the entire allegations are vague in nature. The contents of the complaint would also reveal that they are civil in nature. He would further submit that the place of alleged incident including abusing respondent No.2 - de facto complainant is KL,J Crl.P. No.3229 of 2020 2 not within the meaning of 'public view' and there is no public view at all. He would further contend that the police without verifying the contents of the complaint, have registered the above crime and, therefore, the same has to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that there are serious allegations levelled against the petitioners and other accused. The police after going through the contents of the complaint and after satisfying themselves that the contents of the complaint make out a prima facie case and there is cognizable offence, the police registered the above crime against the petitioners and others. Since punishment for the offences alleged against the petitioners is seven years or below seven years, the police have already initiated the procedure laid down under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1 and accordingly have served the notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. The petitioners have submitted their replies, and the police having considered the same, granted station bail to them. In view of the same, the learned Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the present petition.
5. Mr. Komireddy Karam Chand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - de facto complainant, would submit that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners herein in the complaint lodged by respondent No.2. The incident has occurred in a 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 KL,J Crl.P. No.3229 of 2020 3 'public view' and, therefore, the same would attract the provisions of Section - 3 (i) (r) (s) of the Act. The petitioners - accused Nos.3 and 4 along with accused Nos.1 and 2 have abused respondent No.2 in the name of his caste. The abusive language used by the petitioners is specifically mentioned in the complaint. The petitioners have also threatened respondent No.2 with dire consequences. There is a witness to the said incident i.e., Mr. M.D. Fakruddin, his name is also specifically mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, prima facie case has clearly made out and it is a cognizable offence under Section - 3
(i) (r) (s) of the Act. He has placed reliance on several judgments including the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Swaran Singh v. State through Standing Counsel2.
6. On perusal of the entire record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides would reveal that the entire issue revolves around the property bearing house No.2-59/1, admeasuring 220 square yards in Survey No.317, situated at Venkatraopet (West) village within the limits of Metpally Municipality and Mandal, Jagtial District, which is hereinafter referred to as 'subject property'. Petitioner No.1 - accused No.3 is claiming that he has purchased the subject property under a registered sale deed bearing document No.2685 of 2020, dated 15.07.2020 from his Vendor - Shriramula Rajendra Prasad S/o late Narsaiah. The recitals of the said sale deed would disclose that originally father of Vendor of petitioner No.1, Shriramula Narsaiah, had purchased an 2 . 2008 AIR SCW 5758 KL,J Crl.P. No.3229 of 2020 4 area of 220 square yards plot in Survey No.317 under a registered sale deed bearing document No.532 of 1986, dated 30.06.1986 for a valid consideration from one Komireddy Ramulu S/o Chinna Linganna, and he has owned the said property during his life time. Shriramula Narsaiah died on 14.09.1995 leaving behind him, his wife, two sons and two daughters as his legal heirs. The recitals would further disclose that during his life time, foreseeing the future of his wife, Smt. Shriramula Ambakka, he has directed his two sons and two daughters to forgo the rights on the said property and, accordingly, they have executed an affidavit with consent declaration before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai on 05.05.2004, declaring themselves that the entire property was to be enjoyed by their mother. The recitals of the sale deed would also disclose that the mother of the petitioner No.1's Vendor, Shriramula Ambakka having invested her money, with the permission of Gram Panchayat, Venkatraopet (West) by paying permission fee, constructed a house thereon which has been mutated in her name. The Gram Panchayat Venkatraopet (West) had also given a certificate dated 02.05.2011 to the said effect. Subsequently, the mother of petitioner No.1's vendor had executed a registered Gift Deed bearing document No.419 of 2012, dated 09.03.2012 conveying and transferring the subject property in favour of petitioner No.1's vendor. His name was mutated in the Gram Pancahyat records of Venkatraopet (West), and issued a certificate No.32/2012, dated 23.09.2012 to that effect. Thus, by virtue of the said Gift Settlement Deed, petitioner No.1's vendor became the owner KL,J Crl.P. No.3229 of 2020 5 of the subject property and in the said capacity, he has sold the same to petitioner No.1. In proof of the same, petitioner No.1 has filed the said documents including Encumbrance Certificate and undertaking etc.
7. On the other hand, respondent No.2 - de facto complainant in his complaint has stated that his father - Penta Muthaiah has purchased land admeasuring 220 square yards in Survey No.317 situated at Venkatraopet Village Sivar. Since then, his father and himself are in possession of the said property.
8. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that father of respondent No.2 was a bona fide purchaser of the said property through a receipt and simple sale deed dated 04.05.2008 from Mr. Pasupu Chinna Reddy S/o Reddy, and since twelve (12) years, respondent No.2 and his family are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. Mr. Pasupu Chinna Reddy had full legal rights to sell the said property to the father of respondent No.2 as he had rightful ownership over the said land having purchased it through a registered sale deed dated 04.04.2006. If at all, any objections have to be raised or any complaints to be lodged with regard to the simple sale deed or ownership rights of father of respondent No.2 over the said land, such complaints or objections have to be raised by Mr. Pasupu Chinna Reddy, vendor of father of respondent No.2 and not by third parties. Pasupu Chinna Reddy never denied the ownership of father of respondent No.2. Pasupu Chinna KL,J Crl.P. No.3229 of 2020 6 Reddy has admitted before the police in the preliminary enquiry that he relinquished his rights over the subject land in favour of father of respondent No.2 through the said simple sale deed dated 04.05.2008. Thus, respondent No.2 is claiming right over the subject property.
9. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would further submit that the accused including the petitioners herein have criminally trespassed into the land of respondent No.2 on 22.07.2020, damaged the teak and tomato plants etc. with the help of Tractor. On coming to know about the same, respondent No.2 rushed to the spot and on enquiry, the petitioners herein have abused him in filthy language by referring to his caste name. He would further submit that the allegations and the language used by the petitioners herein are specifically mentioned in the complaint dated 23.07.2020. There is a witness to the said incident. Therefore, the contents of complaint would attract the offences alleged against the petitioners as the incident took place within the 'public view'. He would further submit that the petitioners failed to make out any case for quashment of the proceedings in the aforesaid crime.
10. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed reliance on several judgments and sought to dismiss the present criminal petition.
11. On perusal of the above stated facts would reveal that both petitioner No.1 - accused No.3 and respondent No.2 are claiming right KL,J Crl.P. No.3229 of 2020 7 over the very same property i.e., subject property. Both of them have filed documents in proof of their ownership and possession as mentioned above. But, surprisingly, none of them have initiated civil proceedings either seeking declaration of title or for perpetual injunction. They have resorted to only the criminal proceedings. The complaint lodged by respondent No.2 is dated 23.07.2020. Even then, till date, none of them have initiated civil proceedings.
12. The punishment for the offences alleged against the petitioners herein is seven years or below seven years. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the police have initiated the procedure under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and served notices on the petitioners. The petitioners have submitted their replies. Considering the same, the police have granted station bail to the petitioners. The said fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
13. It is trite to note that the petitioners herein have filed an application seeking anticipatory bail vide Crl.P. No.3304 of 2020. On recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor that the police have already initiated proceedings under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and granted station bail to them, the said Crl.P. was dismissed as infructuous.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh2, referring to the word 'public view/public premises' and also the purport of the KL,J Crl.P. No.3229 of 2020 8 provisions of the Act, held that the Court has to see the purpose for which the Act was enacted. It was obviously made to prevent indignities, humiliation and harassment to the members of SC/ST community, as is evident from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act. Hence, while interpreting Section - 3 (1) (x) of the Act, Court has to take into account the popular meaning of the word 'caste' (Chamar)'. It was further discussed that aforesaid provision does not use the expression `public place', but instead the expression used is `in any place within public view', and distinction of the said two expressions were given.
15. In B. Sudhakar Reddy v. The S.H.O., RGIA, Cyberabad3, rendered by a Single Judge of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh, wherein after referring to several judgments including Swaran Singh2 it was held that the allegations in the complaint, on the premise that they are true, disclose that members of the Scheduled Castes were insulted and intimidated. Whether such an insult or intimidation was intentional; and whether they were intended to humiliate the complainant; are again matters of investigation by the investigating officer, and not for this Court to examine in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Factual aspects including whether the subject land belongs to the petitioner, whether it is his private property, whether it is enclosed within a compound wall, whether the complaint was filed with oblique motives, whether witnesses were present when the alleged offence 3 . W.P. No.13577 of 2012, dated 26.04.2013 KL,J Crl.P. No.3229 of 2020 9 was committed, whether the place where the incident occurred was "a place within public view" etc., are all matters for investigation, and should not, ordinarily, be examined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more so, in cases where the jurisdiction of this Court is invoked for the FIR to be quashed. It was further held that the criminal complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the alleged offence. As long as the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail. Quashing of complaint is warranted only where the complaint is bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the alleged offence.
16. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also relied upon the principle laid down by the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Y. Vasudeva Rao v. State of A.P.4, wherein the learned Single Judge while dealing with a complaint lodged against the petitioners therein, who are a practicing advocate and his wife, by referring to several judgments held that whether the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., at the stage of F.I.R., or at the stage of P.R.C., the observations of the said Court cannot be ignored. Further, whether a member belonging to SC/ST was humiliated and insulted by the accused is a matter of evidence and the same cannot be ordinarily enquired into in a petition for quashing the criminal prosecution.
4 . 2005 (2) ALD Cri 568 KL,J Crl.P. No.3229 of 2020 10
17. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal5. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain guidelines with regard to inherent powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under:
"105. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra- ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.5
. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 KL,J Crl.P. No.3229 of 2020 11
3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court gave a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and KL,J Crl.P. No.3229 of 2020 12 that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.
18. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar6. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. It was further held that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and, therefore, not forgery, the Court should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belongs to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint. By referring to the said judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondent No.2 is not the purchaser and he cannot lodge the complaint and, therefore, the proceedings in the above Crime No.216 of 2020 have to be quashed. 6 . (2009) 8 SCC 751 KL,J Crl.P. No.3229 of 2020 13
19. The learned counsel for the petitioners, by referring to the receipt and simple sale deed dated 04.05.2008, would further contend that in the said sale deed, the name of the District is mentioned as "Jagtial District", which is a new district formed in the year 2016. According to him, the Government of Telangana formed certain new districts including 'Jagtial District' vide Notification dated 11.10.2016 and that by the date of said alleged simple sale deed, the District that existed was Karimnagar, but not Jagtial District. In view of the same, the very existence of such receipt and simple sale deed and the signature of Pasepu Chinna Reddy are doubtful.
20. In view of the above and by citing the above said judgments and the principles laid down therein, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the contents of complaint would reveal that they are civil in nature and, therefore, he sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
21. As discussed supra, the entire lis involved in the present case is with regard to the subject property. None of the parties i.e., petitioner No.1 - accused No.3 and respondent No.2 - de facto complainant did choose to initiate civil proceedings. The police have already initiated the procedure laid down under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and thereafter granted station bail to the petitioners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra7 has categorically held 7 . AIR 2019 SC 847 KL,J Crl.P. No.3229 of 2020 14 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 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.
KL,J Crl.P. No.3229 of 2020 15
22. In view of the above stated authoritative pronouncements and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, coming to the case on hand, as discussed supra, there are several factual aspects that are to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. As already discussed supra, both, petitioner No.1 - accused No.3 and respondent No.2 are claiming rights over the subject property. Both of them have filed copies of documents, both registered and unregistered. The learned counsel for the petitioners disputes the very existence of receipt and simple sale deed dated 04.05.2008, by referring to the date that by that date, 'Jagtial District' was not in existence. In view of the same, matter requires to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. The other aspects including 'public view/public place', and whether the ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioners are lacking in the complaint etc. also requires to be investigated.
23. Perusal of the complaint dated 23.07.2020 lodged by respondent No.2 would reveal that prima facie the alleged incident took place within the 'public view'. The alleged abusive language used by the petitioners and other accused was specifically mentioned in the complaint. The caste name is also referred. All the said aspects require examination.
24. The proceedings are at crime stage. Investigation is pending. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations made in the complaint by respondent No.2 have to be decided only during trial by the competent Court. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only KL,J Crl.P. No.3229 of 2020 16 on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of civil in nature and if ingredients of offence alleged against accused are prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceedings shall not be interdicted as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision.
25. As discussed above, there are several factual aspects which are to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. Prima facie, there are ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. The matter requires investigation. At the cost of repetition, it is apt to note that since punishment for the offences alleged against the petitioners is seven years or below seven years, the police have already initiated the procedure laid down under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. against the petitioners and granted station bail to them. The petitioners failed to establish any ground to invoke inherent power of this Court to quash the proceedings in the above Crime, and thereby the present criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 13th October, 2020 Mgr L.R. copy may be marked.