Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M.Rama Rao vs State Of Ap on 8 November, 2019

Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                 Criminal Petition No.4635 of 2019

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner to quash the charge-sheet in C.C.No.422 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasapuram, West Godavari District.

The petitioner is accused No.1 in the said C.C.No.422 of 2017.

Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on 14.05.2017 at about 10.00 P.M. when the de facto complainant, who is the Tahsildar, along with Deputy Tahsildar Naga Devi and her husband Chandra Kumar, was going in his car bearing No.AP 37 CB 1982 WagonR and when they reached Lines Nagar, Narsapur and stopped the car at that place, accused No.1 along with accused No.2 came to that car and abused the de facto complainant in the name of his caste and slapped him and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 332 and 353 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. On a report lodged by the de facto complainant, the Police registered a case in Crime No.84 of 2017 of Narasapur I Town Police Station, investigated the case and thereafter filed charge-sheet.

The petitioner now seeks quash of the said charge-sheet in this Criminal Petition.

CMR,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the alleged date of offence i.e. 14.05.2017 is a Sunday and it is a public holiday and the alleged time of offence is also at 10.00 P.M. during night time and as such, it cannot be said that the de facto complainant was on duty on that day and discharging his official duties and it is not stated in the F.I.R. as to what is the official duty he was discharging at that time. So, no offences under Sections 332 and 353 of IPC are made out from the facts of the case and thereby prayed to allow the Criminal Petition and quash the charge-sheet in the said case.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State would submit that although it is not stated in the F.I.R. that the de facto complainant was on duty at that time, that he has stated in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement during the course of investigation that he was discharging his official duty at that time as he was going to Collector's office on duty and as such, it is evident that he was on duty and discharging his official duties at the time of offence. So, the offences under Sections 332 and 353 IPC are made out and thereby prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

Perused the record.

As can be seen from the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet, the alleged date of offence is 14.05.2017 and the time of offence is 3 CMR,J.

also 10.00 P.M. during night time. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 14.05.2017 is a Sunday. So, the Court can take judicial notice of the fact that it was a public holiday. Moreover, the time of offence is also 10.00 P.M. during night time. At the time of lodging report with the police, the de facto complainant did not state in the F.I.R. that he was on duty and discharging official duty at that time in specific terms. It is only during the course of investigation, he has stated that he was going to Collector's office at that time and he was discharging his official duties at that time. The said material fact is a glaring omission in his earlier statement in the F.I.R. Moreover, even before the Police during the course of investigation also, he did not give details as to what are the official duties he was discharging at that time. In a vague manner he has stated that he was discharging his official duties at that time as he was going to the office of Collector. No details are given as to why and for what purpose he is going to the office of Collector on a holiday and at that odd time during night.

Along with the charge-sheet, the prosecution did not produce any evidence to show that the de facto complainant was on duty and discharging his official duties at that time. The burden is on the prosecution to prove and establish the material fact to prima facie show that the de facto complainant was on duty at that odd time on a public holiday and discharging any official duty at the time of the alleged offence 4 CMR,J.

and more particularly when it was a Sunday and a public holiday. In the absence of any such evidence placed on record even after completion of investigation, it is to be held that the prosecution failed to establish the material fact that the de facto complainant was on duty and discharging his official duty at the time of the offence. So, when he was not found to be on duty and discharging his official duties at the relevant time as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no offences under Sections 332 and 353 of IPC are made out from the facts of the case.

However, on that ground, the entire charge-sheet cannot be quashed. The contents of the F.I.R. and other statements recorded during the course of investigation show that when the de facto complainant stopped his car at Lines Nagar, Narsapur, that the petitioner along with another accused, came and slapped the de facto complainant and also abused him. If the said fact is true and the same is established during the course of trial beyond all reasonable doubt with acceptable legal evidence, still an offence under Section 323 IPC can be made out. However, the said fact is to be established during the course of trial.

Therefore, in view of the above, the irresistible conclusion is that no case is made out under Sections 332 and 353 of IPC against the petitioner-accused No.1 and the facts at best only attract the commission of offence under Section 323 of IPC, if it 5 CMR,J.

is ultimately proved and established by the prosecution during the trial of the case.

With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

However, even regarding the said offence under Section 323 IPC, it is made clear that only incidental observations are made in this petition. So, the trial Court without being swayed away by any of the observations made by the Court in this petition, shall independently decide the case regarding the alleged offence under Section 323 IPC according to law after appreciating the evidence on record.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall also stand closed.

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:08-11-2019.

cs