Telangana High Court
Chappidi Suresh Babu And 4 Others vs M. Gangadhara Rao And Another on 6 July, 2022
Author: D.Nagarjun
Bench: D.Nagarjun
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6326 of 2019
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the P.R.C.No.118 of 2019 on the file of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad registered for the offence under Sections 307, 384, 506, 147 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The facts as can be gathered from the record available before this Court in brief are as follows:
i) Respondent No.1 was working as lecturer in Geography at M/s.Balalatha's CSB IAS Academy. An amount of Rs.15 lakhs was accumulated to be paid by said M/s.Balalatha's CSB IAS Academy in favour of respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant.
The respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant has started demanding Balalatha and her husband, who are the promoters of the academy, asked him to continue teaching until on going batch of students is completed. When the respondent No.1 - de- facto complainant has insisted to pay money, Balalatha and her husband have insulted the respondent No.1 - de-facto 2 complainant by taking his wife's caste, which is "mala" and that the children of respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant will be hybrid, they also threatened the respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant with dire consequences and directed him to leave Hyderabad by paying Rs.4.72 lakhs.
ii) On 06.12.2018 at about 7.30 PM when the respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant went to his student Sunny Babu room at Gandhi Nagar in his Volkswagon car bearing No.AP 16 DL 7820, Accused Nos. 1 to 5 came there, threatened him with dire consequences, heated arguments took place between them and out of anger accused No.1 took his handicapped stick and beat respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant, whereas Accused Nos.2 and 3 also attacked the respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant mercilessly. The respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant received bleeding injuries and fell down on the road. Accused No.2 damaged the windshield of car of respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant with handicapped stick of accused No.1 and later all of them fled away. The respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant was taken to hospital, wherein the doctor has examined him and given medical certificate stating that the injuries received by the respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant are simple in nature.
3
iii) A complaint was given by the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant to Police concerned, on the basis of which, Musheerabad Police Station has registered a case in Crime No.458 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 307, 384, 506, 147 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and during the course of investigation, Police have recorded statements of the victim and other witnesses and on completion of investigation, Police have filed charge sheet, which is numbered as P.R.C.No.118 of 2019 on the file of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.
3. Aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in P.R.C.No.118 of 2019 on the file of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, they have filed the present criminal petition on the following grounds:
i) A case and counter case were filed between the petitioners and respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant, which were registered as Crime Nos.458 and 459 of 2019 of Musheerabad Police Station respectively. Both the parties have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.04.2019 to settle all the disputes amicably and to withdraw all the cases.4
ii) The petitioners have filed CRLP No.2298 of 2019 before the High Court with a prayer to compound the matter and quash all the proceedings in Crime No.458 of 2019 of Musheerabad Police Station. The respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant has filed CRLP No.2278 of 2019 before the High Court with a prayer to compound the matter and quash all the proceedings in Crime No.459 of 2019 of Musheerabad Police Station.
iii) The High Court in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayana (Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2019 dated 05.03.2019) held that compromise in non-compoundable matters would be effected only after the filing of the charge sheet and adjourned the matter directing the Police not to effect any arrests in view of the compromise entered into.
iv) The respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant has assured that the disputes will be resolved and accordingly received an amount of Rs.10 lakhs from the petitioners and thereafter he is not responding to the calls of the petitioners or their counsel and thereby not coming forward to compromise the disputes between the parties.
5
v) The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit Kumar held that the continuation of proceedings in a criminal case, after entering into a Memorandum of Understanding and after a part of the conditions have been honoured, amounts to abuse of process of Court. The present case is squarely covered by the said authority.
vi) Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code will not attract as the doctor, who examined respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant has opined that the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant are simple in nature and the said injuries have not been caused by any weapon.
vii) After investigation, it came to the light that none of the accused have taken away the phone of respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant and that the same fell down during the altercation and thus the offence under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code will not attract.
viii) A minor altercation between two parties shall not fall within the definition of rioting and hence Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code will not attract.
4. Heard both sides perused the record.
6
5. Now the point for determination is:
"Whether the proceedings against petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 5 in P.R.C.No.118 of 2019 on the file of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad registered for the offence under Sections 307, 384, 506, 147 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?"
6. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that on a complaint given by the petitioners herein, a case in Crime No.459 of 2018 was also registered against the respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant. Subsequently both the parties have entered into Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.04.2019, wherein both the parties have decided to settle all the disputes amicably and withdraw the cases. The petitioners have filed CRLP No.2298 of 2019 before the High Court with a prayer to compound the matter and quash all the proceedings in Crime No.458 of 2019 of Musheerabad Police Station and whereas the respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant has filed CRLP No.2278 of 2019 before the High Court with a prayer to compound the matter and quash all the proceedings in Crime No.459 of 2019 of Musheerabad Police Station. The High Court by order dated 30.4.2019 held that as per the law laid down by 7 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayana1 (Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2019 dated 05.03.2019), a compromise in non-compoundable matters would be effected only after the filing of the charge sheet and adjourned the matter directing the Police not to effect any arrests in view of the compromise entered into.
7. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant has demanded Rs.10 lakhs for effecting compromise and after receiving the said amount by entering into Memorandum of Understanding, the respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant has not been responding. It is further submitted that as per the principle laid down in Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit Kumar2 continuation of the proceedings in criminal case after entering into Memorandum of Understanding and after a part of conditions have been honoured, amounts to abuse of process of Court and the said authority squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand and therefore, prayed the Court to allow the criminal petition.
8. The main ground on which the petitioners are questioning the proceedings in P.R.C.No.118 of 2019 is that there is case 1 (2019) 5 Supreme Court Cases 688 2 (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 299 8 and counter case between the parties including the one on hand, which is registered in Crime No.458 of 2019 of Musheerabad Police Station and both the parties have settled the dispute amicably and entered into Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.04.2019 agreeing to withdraw the cases filed by both the parties. The respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant has undertaken to compound the case in Crime No.458 of 2019 and appear before the Court and similarly the petitioners have agreed to compound the case in Crime No.459 of 2019. It is also mentioned that Rs.10 lakhs was paid to respondent No.2 - de-facto complainant. The petitioners have also filed copy of the statement of Axis Bank account to show that the respondent No. 1 - de-facto complainant was paid money, which is due by M/s. Balalatha's CSB IAS Academy.
9. The only question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether basing on Memorandum of Understanding, can the proceedings in P.R.C.No.118 of 2019 can be quashed.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ruchi Agarwal's case (supra) held as follows:
"Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, contended that though the appellant had 9 signed the compromise deed with the above-mentioned terms in it, the same was obtained by the respondent- husband and his family under threat and coercion and in fact she did not receive lump sum maintenance and her Stridhan properties, we find it extremely difficult to accept this argument in the background of the fact that pursuant to the compromise deed the respondent- husband has given her a consent divorce which she wanted thus had performed his part of the obligation under the compromise deed. Even the appellant partially performed her part of the obligations by withdrawing her criminal complaint filed under Section
125. It is true that she had made a complaint in writing to the Family Court where Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings were pending that the compromise deed was filed under coercion but she withdrew the same and gave a statement before the said court affirming the terms of the compromise which statement was recorded by the Family Court and the proceedings were dropped and a divorce was obtained. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents.
In view of the above said subsequent events and the conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the 10 process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion to do complete justice, we should while dismissing this appeal also quash proceedings arising from the Criminal Case No.Cr.No.224/2003 registered in Police Station, Bilaspur, (Distt.Rampur) filed under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents herein. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal is disposed of."
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmi Narayana's case (supra), wherein it was held as follows:
"16. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC mechanically and even when the investigation was under progress. Somehow, the accused managed to enter into a compromise with the complainant and sought quashing of the FIR on the basis of a settlement. The allegations are serious in nature. He used the fire arm also in commission of the offence. Therefore, the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the accused is not at all considered by the High Court and solely on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the complainant, the High Court has mechanically quashed 11 the FIR, in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The High Court has also failed to note the antecedents of the accused.
17. In view of the above and for the reasons stated, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 07.10.2013 passed by the High Court in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 8000 of 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside, and the FIR/investigation/criminal proceedings be proceeded against the accused, and they shall be dealt with, in accordance with law. Criminal Appeal No.350 of 2019
18. So far as Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP 10324/2018 is concerned, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 308 & 34 of the IPC, solely on the ground that the accused and the complainant have settled the matter and in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Shiji(supra), there may not be any possibility of recording a conviction against the accused. Offence under Section 308 IPC is a non-compoundable offence. While committing the offence, the accused has used the fire arm. They are also absconding, and in the meantime, they have managed to enter into a compromise with the complainant. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this appeal is also allowed, the impugned judgment and order dated 28.05.2018 12 passed by the High Court in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 19309/2018 is hereby quashed and set aside, and the FIR/investigation/criminal proceedings be proceeded against the accused, and they shall be dealt with, in accordance with law.
12. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that allegations leveled against the petitioners are specific and serious in nature and that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief of quashing the proceedings in P.R.C.No.118 of 2019 and thus, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
13. As seen from the record, it is clear that the respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant is working as a lecturer in the institution of the petitioners and disputes between them in respect of remuneration to be paid by the petitioners in favour of respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant. However, the incident allegedly took place when the respondent No.1 - de- facto complainant went to his student's room to discuss about the next day class. As per the story of the prosecution, the petitioners, who bore grudge against the respondent No.1 - de- facto complainant and who were waiting for an opportunity, went to the scene of offence. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 while going to the scene of offence have also spoke to other accused and 13 asked them to reach the scene of offence. All of them picked up quarrel with the respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant and beat him with a handicapped stick of accused No.1, due to which the respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant has received bleeding injuries. There is no medical certificate to show that on which part of the body of the de-facto complainant has received injuries. The injuries received are simple in nature. As per the charge sheet, the de-facto complainant has received injuries with walking stick. In order to consider the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no need to have deadly weapon. Walking stick also some times becomes a weapon and thereby it cannot be ruled out that that no attempt was made on the life of the victim. However, whether there was a motive to kill or not is the subject matter of trial. Considering the principle laid down in the authority of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmi Narayana's case (supra), the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is against the society, this Court is not inclined to consider the case of the petitioners to quash the proceedings against them in P.R.C.No.118 of 2019.
14. Further, the record before the Court would show that there was settlement between the parties and de-facto complainant has agreed to withdraw the case on hand and 14 accepted Rs.10 lakhs as well. These facts are enough to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. However, as observed above, only impediment is Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Since cognizance of the case is taken against the petitioner for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court is not inclined to consider the case of the petitioner favourably.
15. As seen from the record, prima-facie there are specific allegations leveled against each of the accused in causing harm to the de-facto complainant, for which the de-facto complainant also alleged to have taken treatment in the hospital. As discussed above, the offence alleged against the de-facto complainant will have an impact on the society as a whole. There are triable issues in this case, which are to be dealt in detail by the trial Court by framing appropriate charges and proceed with the trial and on the other hand, the petitioners also will have an opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witnesses in discarding their evidence.
16. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in 15 P.R.C.No.118 of 2019 on the file of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.
17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ DR. D.NAGARJUN, J Date: 06.07.2022 AS