Telangana High Court
D. Sri Lalitha Satya Vani vs The State Of Telangana on 18 July, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6837 OF 2020
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.48 of 2019 pending on the file of VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge - cum - Special Court for SC/ST Cases at Secunderabad. Petitioners herein are A.1 and A.2 in the said case. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 3(1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (for short, 'the Act').
2. Heard Sri P.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Khaja Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for 1st respondent - State. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent. Perused the record.
3. As per the charge sheet, allegations leveled against the petitioners herein are that the 2nd respondent is supporter of local MLA of Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) party/L.W.12 and activist of the said party. During Assembly Elections campaign-2018, on 10.11.2018, between 11 to 12 hours, while 2nd respondent, the TRS party MLA candidate/L.W.12 along with TRS party workers were conducting padayatra in Kalyan Nagar, Venture-I, SR Nagar, 2 Hyderabad, when they reached near Murthy Mansion Apartments, the petitioners herein made abusive words against the L.W.12 questioning about their problem, restrained and obstructed him from doing election campaign. Then, 2nd respondent interfered and tried to pacify them but they insulted 2nd respondent with an intent to humiliate and abuse him by uttering certain words. On 06.02.2019 about 11 hours, 2nd respondent went to Kalyan Nagar, Venture-I on his two wheeler, stopped near the Murthy Apartments, where the petitioners herein were residing. On seeking 2nd respondent, the petitioners herein came down and insulted the 2nd respondent with facial expressions by spitting on the floor murmuring abusive words. Thus, the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offences.
4. On receipt of the complaint, dated 07.02.2019, the Police, S.R.Nagar Police Station, have registered a case in Cr.No.93 of 2019 against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of the 2nd respondent as L.W.1, TRS Party workers as L.Ws.2 to 5. He has also recorded the statements of L.Ws.8 to 12 eye witnesses. On consideration of the said statements, the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet against the petitioners herein.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 2nd respondent got filed a false complaint at the behest of L.W.12- 3 MLA with false allegations though 2nd respondent was not present at the time of the incident when said MLA visited their apartment only to settle scores against the petitioners. Even in the re-enquiry report in Cr.No.93 of 2019 of the Addl.Commissioner of Police (ACP), stated that the very registration of the said crime against the petitioners under the provisions of the Act, as false. But contrary to the same charge sheet for the aforesaid offences was laid. There is no scope to insult the 2nd respondent with facial expressions since the petitioners stay in the third floor of the apartment and no access to view the people on the road. Since the petitioners have questioned the illegal activities of L.W.12-the MLA, and about their property issue, a false case was registered against the petitioners at the instance of the said MLA. Even the alleged incident occurred on 10.11.2018 and the complaint was lodged on 07.02.2019 after a lapse of nearly three months. The contents of the complaint as well as the charge sheet including the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. do not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioners. Therefore, he sought to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.48 of 2019.
6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioners herein. The contents of the complaint as well as the charge sheet constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. Therefore, 4 there are several triable issues. The petitioners have to face trial and prove their innocence during the course of trial before the Court below. Instead of doing so, they have filed the present petition. The petitioners cannot take the said defences in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. On consideration of the entire material on record only, the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet against the petitioners herein. With the said contentions, learned Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the present petition.
7. Perusal of the record would reveal that 2nd respondent is claiming that he along with L.Ws. 2 to 5 are TRS party workers. L.W.12 is contestant for MLA in the said Assembly Elections 2018.
8. It is relevant to note that the alleged incident took place on 10.11.2018. 2nd respondent lodged the present complaint on 07.02.2019. Thus, there is abnormal delay of almost three months in lodging the complaint. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. from February to April, 2019.
9. Perusal of the record would reveal that the statements of L.Ws.1 to L.W.5, the TRS party workers, is stereotypic. L.W.8 is neighbour of the petitioners herein. He has not stated anything about insulting 2nd respondent by the petitioners. According to his statement, the petitioners requested L.W.12 for something. 5 Arguments took place between the petitioners and L.W.12 but he could not hear anything. Some altercation took place between the petitioners and L.W.12 and his followers. L.W.9 is also neighbor to the petitioners. He has also stated on the same lines that of L.W.8. L.W.10 is Ward Member of Kalyan Nagar, Venture-I. She stated that the alleged incident took place on 06.02.2019. She has also stated about the information given by 2nd respondent with regard to alleged incident dated 10.11.2018. L.W.10 is a watchman. He has stated about the petitioners requesting L.W.12 about their work.
10. L.W.12 is the contesting candidate for MLA in the Assembly Elections 2018. Thus, L.Ws.8 and 9, eye witnesses did not state anything against the petitioners herein. L.W.10 is a ward member and L.W.11 is interested witness.
11. It is relevant to note that 1st petitioner herein has lodged a complaint on 10.11.2018 with the Police, S.R.Nagar, suspecting life threat from L.W.12 and his followers. In the said complaint, 1st petitioner has specifically stated about the threat given by L.W.12 and his followers. She has also specifically mentioned that she questioned L.W.12 with regard to their property issue for which he got annoyed and provoked his followers to pick up quarrel with the petitioners herein. The Police, S.R.Nagar Police Station, have received the said complaint and issued receipt. They have not acted upon the 6 said complaint. Therefore, she has submitted a representation dated 05.10.2020 with the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. She has also marked a copy to the several people. Since there is no action on their part, she has approached the Union Minister, who has endorsed the same to the Commissioner of Police with a request to look into the matter. Accordingly, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Hyderabad, has requested the Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCS, WCO, Team-VIII, CCS, DD, to cause a detailed enquiry into the matter. Accordingly, the said Asst. Commissioner of Police, caused enquiry and submitted a report, dated 27.07.2019 to the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad.
12. In the said report, he has mentioned that he has gone through the file in Cr.No.93 of 2019 of S.R.Nagar Police Station, visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses who were already examined by the Investigating Officer in the said crime and he has examined some more independent witnesses who are neighbours and also present at the scene of offence on the day of offence. In the said report, it is further stated that L.Ws.1 to 5 are active workers of the TRS party and strong supporters of L.W.12. They are interested witnesses. L.Ws. 6 and 7 who were examined by the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.93 of 2019 have not stated anything about the commission of offence, they stated that they have not heard the conversation between the 2nd respondent and the 7 petitioners on the date of incident. L.Ws.6 and 7 have differed from their statements with the statements of Part-II. He has re-examined L.W.6 who is also neighbour and eye witness to the incident in detail. L.W.6 stated that 2nd respondent is not at all present at the scene of offence on the date of offence and he has not accompanied L.W.12. The entire incident was recorded in the cell phone and he was very much present at the scene. Petitioners did not take the name of caste of anybody, but she only questioned L.W.12 as to why her land/building issue not yet solved and that how he seek vote. Having not satisfied with the said attitude of the 1st petitioner, the followers of L.W.12 on the instigation of L.W.12, abused the petitioners herein in vulgar language. He has handed over the pen drive containing the conversation of arguments took place between both parties. In the said report, the ACP, WCO Team-VIII, CCS DD, Hyderabad, has further mentioned that a land dispute is there between the petitioners and the followers of L.W.12. The petitioners herein have purchased the open land of 400 sq.yards in the same colony which belongs to their aunt N.Vijaya Bharathi who is NRI and the petitioners started constructing a building. But the followers of L.W.12 and one Sanjeeva brought some Court notices to stop the building construction claiming that the owner of the said land had already entered into an agreement with them and took advance of Rs.14 Lakhs. A case in Cr.No.580 of 2017 was registered by the 8 Police, S.R.Nagar Police Station which was subsequently transferred to CCS, Hyderabad and re-registered as Cr.No.147 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. L.W.12 requested the petitioners to withdraw the said case. The Investigating Officer in Cr.No.147/2017 has already completed investigation and filed charge sheet.
13. The said facts would reveal that there is a dispute between the petitioners and the followers of L.W.12. The above said ACP has recorded the statements of L.W.8 owner of lakshmi Sai Ladies Tailor, and L.W.9 retired Bank Manager of Punjab National Bank. He has also stated in his report about registration of a case in Cr.No.915 of 2018 against the 1st petitioner herein for the offences under Sections 352, 506 and 427 of IPC by the Police, S.R.Nagar Police Station on the complaint lodged by Smt. Vijayanthimala. She has falsely implicated 1st petitioner herein. The said facts would also reveal that there is property dispute between the petitioners and followers of L.W.12. As stated supra, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of TRS party activists as L.Ws. 1 to 5, the panch witnesses as L.Ws. 6 and 7. L.Ws. 7 and 8 did not state anything against the petitioners herein. Whereas, in the re-enquiry conducted by the said Assistant Commissioner of Police, he has examined the statements of the witnesses already examined in Cr.No.93 of 2019. He has also recorded the statements of L.Ws. 8 and 9. On 9 consideration of the entire facts including the statements of the witnesses, the ACP, CCs, WCO Team VIII, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, has specifically mentioned that the said Cr.No.93 of 2019 was 'false'. As stated above, there is abnormal delay in lodging the present complaint. Alleged incident took place on 10.11.2018 and 2nd respondent lodged complaint on 07.02.2019, by which time Assembly Elections were over, L.W.12 got elected as MLA. There are cases pending between the petitioners and the followers of L.W.12 with regard to the above said property. Though the Police, S.R.Nagar Police Station, have received and acknowledged the complaint dated 10.11.2018 of 1st petitioner herein, they did not act upon it. The 1st petitioner has narrated the entire story with regard to creating fake documents in respect of the said site in the said complaint. The said facts would clearly reveal that 2nd respondent has implicated the petitioners herein in the present case due to the said property dispute. 2nd respondent is a strong follower of L.W.12. In fact, as per L.W.6, 2nd respondent was not present at the scene of offence on 10.11.2018. In fact, at the instance of L.W.12, his followers have abused the petitioners in vulgar language since they questioned L.W.12 about their property dispute.
14. It is also relevant to note that Section 341 of IPC deals with the punishment for wrongful restraint that whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished. Section 339 IPC deals with 10 wrongful restraint that whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person. Section 504 IPC deals with whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished.
15. The contents of the charge sheet including the statements of the witnesses lack the ingredients of the above said offences.
16. It is also relevant to discuss Section 3(1) (r) (s) of the Act reads as follows:-
(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;
17. As discussed supra, L.W.6, an independent witness examined by the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.93 of 2019 categorically stated that the 2nd respondent was not there at the scene of offence on 10.11.2018. He has recorded the entire incident in mobile phone and he has given pen drive to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCS, DD, Hyderabad. There is no mention 11 that the petitioners are aware that 2nd respondent is a Member of Scheduled Caste. There is no evidence to the said effect.
18. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the contents of charge sheet lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against petitioners. 2nd respondent, at the instance of L.W.12, implicated the petitioners in the present case. It is an abuse of process of law.
19. The present case squarely falls within the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal1, for exercise of power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the same are extracted herein:-
"(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 FIR 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.
(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 FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 12 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 Act concerned (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 Act concerned, 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."
20. In view of the said discussion, this Court is of the considered view that 2nd respondent has implicated the petitioners herein in the present case at the instance of L.W.12 local MLA. Investigating Officer in Cr.No.93 of 2019 has laid charge sheet against the petitioners herein under the influence of L.W.12. He has not conducted investigation in a fair and transparent manner. Admittedly, there is property dispute between the petitioners and the followers of L.W.12. L.W.12 himself requested 1st petitioner to get complaint lodged against his followers withdrawn. Thus, according to this Court, the contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners herein. It is an abuse of 13 process of law. The proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.48 of 2019 cannot go on against the petitioners herein.
21. Therefore, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.48 of 2019 on the file of VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge - Cum - Special Court for SC/ST Cases at Secunderabad, against the petitioners herein are quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition, shall stand closed.
___________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:18.07.2022 vvr