Telangana High Court
Kiranreddy Anumandla vs State Of Telangana And Another on 21 February, 2023
Crl.Petition No.1771 of 2023
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1771 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner- accused to quash the order dated 17.02.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.60 of 2023 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Jangaon.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 - State.
3. The petitioner - accused was arrested by Station House Officer, Raghunathpalli Police Station, Jangoan, and he was taken for remand before the Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangoan on 04.02.2023. The learned Magistrate found that there are no allegations in the complaint against the accused which are punishable under Section 386 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), since there was no extortion by the accused by putting a person in fear of death or of grievous injury. The learned Magistrate further found that the incident happened in a public place and the accused did not carry any weapon with him that is likely to put the complainant under fear. In Crl.Petition No.1771 of 2023 2 the said circumstances, the offences that are likely to be attracted are offences under Sections 506 and 384 of IPC and not Section 386 of IPC. Having found that no offence is made out under Section 386 of IPC against the accused, the learned Magistrate refused to remand the accused and set the accused at liberty on furnishing personal bond for Rs.10,000/- and also directed to follow procedure under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.
4. The State has preferred a Revision before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jangaon, questioning the refusal of the learned Magistrate in remanding the petitioner herein. The learned Sessions Judge having considered the application of the State has set aside the order of the learned Magistrate on the ground that two other criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner herein and in the said background, there is a necessity of interrogating the accused with regard to the transactions and also to investigate whether a prima facie case under Section 386 of IPC is made out or not. In the said circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that at the threshold of investigation, these aspects cannot be decided by the Court. Further, the learned Sessions Judge has directed the accused to surrender before the learned Crl.Petition No.1771 of 2023 3 Magistrate on 20.02.2023, by setting aside the orders passed by the learned Magistrate.
5. The learned Magistrate has given reasons as to why an offence under Section 386 of IPC was not attracted. However, the learned Sessions Judge in the revision preferred by the State held that the presence of accused is necessary for investigation and the Court cannot adjudicate regarding the prima facie case being made out under Section 386 of IPC.
6. Under Revisional Jurisdiction, the Sessions Court or the High Court can intervene for satisfying as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such order. A finding that the accused would be necessary for interrogation cannot be said to be a judicious order while exercising jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
7. In the event of a penal provision being mentioned by police, such complaints have to be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining whether the offence is made out or not. In the present case, when the learned Magistrate has found that none of the ingredients under Section 386 of IPC are made out, it is the duty of Revisional Sessions Court to give reasons as to how the offence Crl.Petition No.1771 of 2023 4 under Section 386 of IPC was made out to deny an opportunity of giving explanation to a notice issued under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. since the other offences are punishable up to seven years. The Police cannot quote penal provisions to overcome the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar's case and also not to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.
8. According to the complaint, the petitioner herein had registered certain extent of land belonging to farmers in favour of 2nd respondent - de facto complainant. However, knowing about the sale transaction, the farmers have lodged a complaint against this petitioner and the 2nd respondent. When the 2nd respondent has questioned the petitioner herein about the cheating done by him, the petitioner issued cheques. The petitioner called the 2nd respondent to a place near Raghunathpalli M.R.O. office area and when the 2nd respondent asked to return the said amounts and has shown the cheques issued by this petitioner, then the petitioner had pushed the 2nd respondent and took away the said cheques and left the place. Earlier a complaint was filed by farmers and case was registered against this petitioner and 2nd respondent for offence of cheating.
Crl.Petition No.1771 of 20235
9. Even according to the said allegation in the complaint, prima facie, none of the ingredients of Section 386 of IPC are made out. The learned Sessions Judge without adverting to the facts of the case has passed an order stating that the petitioner would be required for the purpose of investigation and cancelled the order passed by the learned Magistrate. In the said circumstances, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside.
10. At this juncture, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that this Court cannot pass orders, without issuing notice to 2nd respondent - de facto complainant.
11. Prima facie, this Court finds that ingredients of an offence under Section 386 of IPC are not made out and since the order of the learned Sessions Judge is bereft of reasons, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the orders of the learned Sessions Judge and the order of the learned Magistrate has to be upheld.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the order dated 17.02.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.60 of 2023 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Jangaon, is hereby set aside. Crl.Petition No.1771 of 2023 6
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 21.02.2023 rev Note: Issue C.C. by 22.02.2023.
B/o.
rev