Telangana High Court
Prastal Veera Potluri Pvp vs The State Of Ts on 20 October, 2020
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2745, 2807 AND 3307 OF 2020 COMMON ORDER:
Mr. Prasad Veera Potluri, filed Criminal Petition No.2745 of 2020 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.391 of 2020, pending on the file of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad City Commissionerate. He is accused No.1 in the said crime. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 452, 427, 504, 506 and 147 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), 1860.
2. The very same petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.2807 of 2020 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail in the said crime.
3. The petitioner has also filed another Criminal Petition No.3307 of 2020 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail in an unregistered Crime with regard to the complaint dated 23.06.2020 lodged by Mrs. Shruti Reddy with the Banjara Hills Police Station.
4. In all the above three Criminal Petitions, the petitioner as well as the de facto complainants are neighbours, residing in the very same Community, territorial jurisdiction is within the Banjara Hills Police Station and the allegations levelled appear to be same and, KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 2 therefore, all these Criminal Petitions are being disposed of by a common order.
5. Heard Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Bharadwaj Associates, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020; Mr. Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Rohit Pogula, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P. Nos.2807 and 3307 of 2020; and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent - State; and also Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. T. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 and respondent No.2 in Crl.P. No.2807 of 2020 i.e., de facto complainant.
6. Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel, would submit that the contents of the complaint dated 24.06.2020 lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. The allegations mentioned in the complaint are civil in nature and they are in respect of a 'Villa'. The petitioner never trespassed into the house of respondent No.1 in Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 and respondent No.2 in Crl.P. No.2807 of 2020, and for convenience sake, hereinafter referred to as 'de facto complainant'. He would further submit that the petitioner herein is not the Director of the Company, which developed the community, constructed the buildings/Villas and he is no way interested in the same.
KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 3
7. The learned senior counsel, referring to the contents of the complaint dated 24.06.2020, would submit that even as per the contents of the complaint, the petitioner herein has forcibly entered with mala fide intention in the community/society, armed with private goons about 10 - 15 persons, threatened the de facto complainant and damaged his house and terrorized his family members. By referring to the same, the learned senior counsel would submit that the contents of the complaint dated 24.06.2020 lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein, more particularly, under Section 452 of IPC.
8. The learned senior counsel would also submit that the de facto complainant has suffered two orders from the Civil Court in O.S. Nos.1285 and 1296 of 2020. There are three writ petitions pending. The de facto complainant has also suffered an order in W.P. No.9717 of 2020. He would further submit that punishment for the offences alleged against the petitioner herein is seven years or below seven years. The police have already invoked the procedure laid down under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the police have to strictly follow the said procedure and also the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1. Thus, by referring to the same, the learned senior counsel sought to quash the proceedings in the above said Crime.
1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 4
9. Mr. Dammalapati Srinivas, learned senior counsel representing Mr. Rohit Pogula, learned counsel in Crl.P. Nos.2807 and 3307 of 2020, by adopting the submissions made by Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel, sought to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein.
10. He would further submit that the contents of the complaint would reveal that the disputes are civil in nature and the de facto complainant is trying to criminalize the said disputes to harass the petitioner herein and others. In the said course of action, the de facto complainant has lodged the complaint with all false and baseless allegations. He has filed several Photostat copies of documents including copies of building permission, sanctioned plan, Occupancy Certificate, Sale deed vide bearing document No.1427 of 2019, photographs in proof of his contention that M/s. Dakshin Realties Private Limited has developed 10 Luxury Residential Villas under the name and style "PREMPARVAT BY PVP" on the land admeasuring 9,045 square yards at 8-2-545 in Survey Nos.129/64, 65 correlating to T.S. NOs.20/1 and 20/2, situated at Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, after obtaining necessary approvals from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC). One Villa is owned by the said Company. The said company has also purchased another 55 square yards for the purpose of main entrance. Therefore, the said Company is not only a Developer, but also owner of the Villa No.L4 KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 5 and validly holds substantial interest in the whole project including common areas and amenities.
11. The learned counsel would further submit that the de facto complainant clandestinely started illegal and unauthorized construction in May, 2020 and, therefore, the said Company has filed W.P. No.9717 of 2020 against the de facto complainant and the GHMC and other authorities, and the de facto complainant has suffered an order. Thus, there are civil disputes between the petitioner and the de facto complainant which are civil in nature. With the said disputes, by boring grudge against the petitioner herein, the de facto complainant has lodged the present complaint. Therefore, the learned senior counsel sought to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein.
12. Mr. Dammalapati Srinivas, learned senior counsel representing Mr. Rohit Pogula, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P. No.3307 of 2020, sought to grant anticipatory to the petitioner in an unregistered crime with regard to the complaint dated 23.06.2020 lodged by another de facto complainant - Mrs. Shruti Reddy with the Banjara Hills Police Station. The learned senior counsel would submit that there are no specific allegations / overt acts against the petitioner herein. Even then, the police are trying to apprehend the petitioner herein without even registering the case and without following the procedure laid down under Section 41-A of KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 6 Cr.P.C. and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar1.
13. By referring to the documents, such as sale deed and orders in Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020, W.P. No.9717 of 2020 and Crl.P. No.2833 of 2020 etc., the learned senior counsel would submit that the de facto complainant is trying to criminalize the civil disputes. With the said contentions and by relying upon the principle laid down in Gurubaksh Singh v. State of Punjab2, the learned senior counsel sought to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in an unregistered crime.
14. When the matter came up for hearing on 28.09.2020, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has submitted that the police have not registered any crime on the complaint dated 23.06.2020 lodged by Mrs. Shruti Reddy. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the anticipatory bail application in Crl.P. No.3307 of 2020 is not maintainable in an unregistered crime.
15. As per the principle laid down in Gurubaksh Singh2, even in an unregistered crime, anticipatory bail application is maintainable.
16. Recording the submissions made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the police have not registered any case on the complaint given by Mrs. Shruti Reddy, Crl.P. No.3307 of 2020 is 2 . AIR 1980 SC 1632 KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 7 disposed of directing the police, Banjara Hills Police Station, to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and also the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar1 in the event of registration of a case by the police on the complaint dated 23.06.2020 made by Mrs. Shruti Reddy, and the punishment for the said offences is seven years or below seven years.
17. Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. T. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the de facto complainant, would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioner in the complaint. He has referred to the contents of the complaint and would submit that in the complaint it is specifically mentioned that on 24.06.2020 at 9.30 a.m., Mr. Prasad V. Potluri has forcibly entered with mala fide intention in the community/society, armed with private goons about 10 to 15 persons and forcibly trespassed into "his house", and threatened, damaged it and terrorized the family members. Thus, by referring to the same, the learned senior counsel would submit that there is specific allegation of house trespass by the petitioner in the complaint dated 24.06.2020. The contents of the complaint dated 24.06.2020 have to be read conjointly, but not in isolation.
18. The learned senior counsel would also submit that the matter is at crime stage and there are several factual aspects which are to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. He has referred to the exceptions mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 8 Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3, and would submit that there are no exceptions in the present case. He would further submit that punishment for the offences alleged against the petitioner herein are seven years or below seven years and, therefore, the police have already initiated the proceedings under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. He would further submit that the petitioner herein is a Developer and he has interest in the property. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner herein is neither a Developer nor have any interest in the said property. He has referred to various documents including the sale deed of the de facto complainant wherein the Venture's name is mentioned as "PREMPARVAT BY PVP", and it is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. With the said contentions, the learned senior counsel sought to dismiss all the petitions.
19. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that there are several issues/factual aspects to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer and it is only at crime stage. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the police, on receipt of the complaint dated 24.06.2020 from the de facto complainant and on examination of the same came to a conclusion that there is a cognizable offence and prima facie case and by following the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh4 have registered the case in Crime No.391 of 2020 in accordance with procedure laid 3 . 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 4 . (2014) 2 SCC 1 KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 9 down under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Since the punishment for the offences alleged against the petitioner herein is seven years or below seven years, the police have initiated the procedure laid down under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and also the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar1. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the petitioner herein instead of co-operating with the Investigating Officer, filed the present petitions seeking to grant anticipatory bail and to quash the proceedings in the said crime. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the petitions viz., Crl.P. Nos.2745 and 2807 of 2020.
20. The above rival submissions and the contents of the complaint and also the documents filed by the respective parties would reveal that the dispute is with regard to the property i.e. Villas including the Villas belong to the petitioner and the de facto complainant. According to the petitioner, he is not having any right or interest in the said Villas. He is neither a Director, nor a share- holder in M/s. Dakshin Realities Private Limited. In proof of the same, the petitioner has filed several documents including the proceedings issued by the Registrar of Companies. By referring to the same, the learned senior counsel would contend that the petitioner is not having any interest in the said company, nor he is a Director. In view of the same, the following factual aspects are involved in the present petitions.
KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 10
a) Whether the petitioner is a Director in M/s. Dakshin Realities Private Limited or not?
b) Whether he is a Shareholder of the said Company or not?
c) Whether there are ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein as per the contents of complaint dated 24.06.2020 or not?
d) Whether the petitioner entered into the community/society and also the house of the de facto complainant with force or not?
e) Whether the petitioner herein threatened, damaged the property and terrorized the family members or not? and
f) Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint dated 24.06.2020 attract the offences under Sections 452, 427, 504, 506 and 146 read with 149 of IPC?
21. Pendency of the proceedings:
i) W.P. No.9593 of 2020 was filed by the wife of the petitioner herein against the Police Department and the de facto complainant and the same was disposed of basing on the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that police have already registered a case in Crime No.391 of 2020 and they are expected to conduct investigation into the crime, which was registered in accordance with law.
KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 11
ii) W.P. No.9619 of 2020 filed by the petitioner to declare the action of the Station House Officer, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad in trying to arrest the petitioner in connection with Crime No.391 of 2020 dated 24.06.2020 without following the procedure laid down under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar1, and the same was disposed of on 21.08.2020.
iii) W.P. No.9717 of 2020 filed by M/s. Dakshin Realities Private Limited, represented by its Authorized Signatory, Mr. Dileep Badey, to declare the action of the GHMC in not taking any action upon the complaint dated 25.06.2020 made by the said company requesting the GHMC authorities to stop the illegal constructions being made by the de facto complainant on the terrace of Villa No.U2 as illegal and arbitrary etc. In the said writ petition, I.A. No.1 of 2020 is also filed seeking a direction to the GHMC to restrain the de facto complainant from undertaking any further illegal and unauthorized structures on the terrace of the said Villa as the same is being contrary to building permit No.36000/Ho/CZ/Cir.10/2014, dated 25.08.2014. In the said writ petition, this Court passed an interim order on 03.07.2020 making it clear that if any construction is to be made by the de facto complainant, the same shall be only after obtaining necessary permission, and if any violation thereof is made, the GHMC authorities shall be at liberty to initiate action in accordance with law.
KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 12
iv) O.S. No.1285 of 2020 on the file of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed by M/s. Dakshin Realties Private Limited against the de facto complainant for perpetual injunction. The trial Court, vide order dated 15.07.2020, granted interim injunction order restraining the de facto complainant from undertaking any construction.
v) O.S. No.1296 of 2020 on the file of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad was filed by M/s. Dakshin Realties Private Limited against the de facto complainant and Mrs. D. Shruti Reddy and her husband,- Mr. E. Suman Reddy. In the said suit, the trial Court vide order dated 16.07.2020 in I.A. No.183 of 2020 has granted ex parte interim injunction restraining the respondents therein from interfering with or obstruction in any manner whatsoever with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said company.
22. The above referred proceedings would reveal that there are disputes among the petitioner herein, M/s. Dakshin Realties Private Limited, de facto complainant, Mrs. D. Shruti Reddy and her husband, Mr. E. Suman Reddy with regard to illegal constructions alleged to have made by the de facto complainant and others in respect of Villas viz., U2 and L-4.
PROTECTION GRANTED BY THIS COURT IN THE PRESENT CRIMINAL PETITIONS:
23. (i) Vide order dated 22.07.2020 in Crl.P. No.2807 of 2020, this Court directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 13 petitioner in connection with Crime No.391 of 2020, and the same was extended from time to time.
(ii) Vide order dated 30.06.2020 in Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020, this Court directed the police, Banjara Hills not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner, and the same was extended from time to time.
(iii) In Crl.P. No.3307 of 2020, there is no interim order, and the matter was directed to be listed along with the above said Criminal Petition.
24. Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s. NEPC India Ltd.5, wherein it was held, by referring to various judgments including the judgment rendered by it in Bhajan Lal3 and the exceptions, that as the nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not. It was further held that while no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who 5 . (2006) 6 SCC 736 KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 14 initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under section 250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may.
25. The learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal3 and referred to the exceptions. By referring to the said judgments, the learned senior counsel would submit that the present case squarely falls within the said exceptions.
26. Whereas, Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel, placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S.6, wherein after referring to its earlier judgments including the principle laid down in Bhajan Lal3, Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [AIR 1999 SC 1216], Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State Of West Bengal [ (2002) 1 SCC 555] and R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta [2008 (14) SCALE 85], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and rarely with great caution. 6 . 2020 SCC Online SC 318 KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 15 He would further submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. On the very same principle, the learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on i) Mosiruddin Munshi v. Mohd. Siraj7; ii) R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta8; iii) State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo9; iv) Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)10; v) Union of India v. B.R. Bajaj11; and vi) Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh12.
27. In Kalyani8, the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down for quashing FIR in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the High Court, and each case has to be considered on its own merits. The Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, although would not interfere with a genuine complaint keeping in view the purport and object for which the provisions of Sections 482 and 483 of Cr.P.C. had been introduced by the Parliament but would not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate cases. One of the paramount duties of the Superior Courts is to see that a person who is apparently innocent is not subjected to persecution and humiliation on the basis of a false 7 . (2014) 14 SCC 29 8 . (2005) 13 SCC 540 9 . (2009) 1 SCC 516 10 . (2009) 8 SCC 728 11 . (1994) 2 SCC 277 12 . (2014) 5 SCC 369 KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 16 and wholly untenable complaint. In Saroj Kumar Sahoo9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Cr.P.C. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C., (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
28. The learned senior counsel by referring to the said principle would submit that there are several factual aspects to be investigated by the Investigating Officer and the matter is at crime stage.
29. Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on the principle held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao12, wherein by referring to the definitions of 'house trespass' under Sections 448 and 452 of IPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the trespass was into a house and that appellant therein entered office having prepared to assault victim and in any case for putting him in fear of hurt or of assault. There is nothing in Section 452 of IPC to suggest that the use to which the house is put makes any difference. It is not the requirement of Section 452 of IPC that for a trespass to be an offence the house must be a private place and not an office. The law protects any house from trespass vide Section 448 of IPC and further protects persons within KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 17 the house from being assaulted or even put in fear of hurt or wrongful restraint within their own house. By referring to the same, the learned senior counsel would submit that in the present case, there is specific allegation in the complaint dated 24.06.2020 by the de facto complainant that the petitioner along with his goons has trespassed into the community/society and also into the house of the petitioner. In view of the said specific allegation, the matter has to be investigated by the Investigating Officer on the factual aspects. Quashing of the present proceedings at crime stage is not proper. With the said submissions, the learned senior counsel sought to dismiss the present petitions.
30. In view of the above, it is apt to refer to Section - 442 of IPC, which deals with 'House trespass' and the same is as under::
"442. House trespass.--Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit "house-trespass".
Explanation.--The introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser's body is entering sufficient to constitute house- trespass."
31. Section 425 deals with 'mischief', and as per which whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 18 the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief". Explanations 1 and 2 are also given.
32. In view of the above said definitions and also authoritative pronouncements with regard to powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as discussed supra, there are several aspects which are to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. The matter is at crime stage. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra13 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 spell out ingredients of a 13 . AIR 2019 SC 847 KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 19 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.
33. In the present case also, as discussed supra, on perusal of the complaint, it discloses that the prima facie allegations are levelled against the petitioner by the de facto complainant. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided by the Investigating Officer and the trial Court during trial. At the 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.
34. As stated above, there are specific allegations in the complaint dated 24.06.2020 that the petitioner herein has forcibly entered with mala fide intention in the community/society armed with KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 20 private goon 10-15 persons and forcibly trespassed into his house and threatened, damaged it and terrorized the family members. The petitioner herein has also committed the same on 23.06.2020. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in Crime No.391 of 2020.
35. As submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and also Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant that punishment for the offence alleged against the petitioner herein 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 served a copy of notice on him. Therefore, the petitioner herein is at liberty to submit his reply to the said notice by submitting the relevant documents, if any, in support of his contention. The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer by receiving notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and also by submitting information / documents sought by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the Investigating Officer of Banjra Hills Police Station in Crime No.391 of 2020 is directed to follow the procedure under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and also the guidelines issued by the Hon"ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar1. Till completion of investigation and filing of final report, the police are directed not to arrest the petitioner herein. The police are at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law in the event of non-
KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 21 cooperation of the petitioner for investigation by the Investigating Officer.
36. With the above observation, Criminal Petition Nos.2745 and 2807 of 2020 are disposed of.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petitions shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 20th October, 2020 Mgr