Telangana High Court
Siligireddy Janardhan Reddy vs State Of Telangana on 7 June, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9798 OF 2021
ORDER:
Heard Sri Vimal Varma Vasireddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B. Krishna, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, and learned Public Prosecutor.
2. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.1094 of 2019 pending on the file of District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
3. The petitioner herein is A-14. Offences alleged against the petitioner herein are under sections 212, 302 and 109 of IPC.
[
4. As per the charge sheet, the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein/A-14 are that, he is resident of Boduppal and working as an advocate clerk. He knows A-1 since last 10 years and he is guiding A-1 in all issues relating to Court and other matters. A case in Crime No.844 of 2018 was registered against A-1 in Police Station Medipally, for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 509, 2 Crl. P. No.9798 of 2021 504, 448, r/w 34 IPC, on 03.11.2018. Thereafter, A-1 requested A-14 to file a writ petition challenging the said crime through an Advocate. Accordingly, the petitioner herein filed a writ petition through a Lawyer. A-1 informed A-14 that he is facing financial crisis in his Login Media business, and investors which include deceased and others have been forcing A-1 to clear off the liabilities.
4.1 On 21.11.2018, after the incident, A-1 telephonically spoke to the petitioner/A14 expressing his desire to surrender to police, who suggested him to hide. After the incident, A-1 informed his every movement to the petitioner/A-14 about killing of deceased. CDR details furnished by LW.43 shows the said version between A-1 and A-14 before and after the commission of offence. A-1 proceeded to Chengicherla village by XUV Car and contacted A-13 over phone and informed him to come down to Chengicherla, who came along with A-12 by TS Jupiter TS-070GE-2812. Thus, the petitioner herein along with A-11 to A-13 and A-15 conspired with A-1 and other accused and committed the murder of deceased and they 3 Crl. P. No.9798 of 2021 have cooperated A-1 in commission of offence. Therefore, committed the offences punishable under Sections 212, 302 r/w 109 IPC.
5. Sri Vimal Varma Vasireddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioner herein. The petitioner never cooperated with A-
1. There is no specific charge/allegation levelled against the petitioner herein. The allegations levelled against the petitioner herein are bald in nature. Even according to the respondent/police, the petitioner came into picture only after murder of the deceased. Therefore, the petitioner by no stretch of imagination can be charged under Section 302 IPC when he had no knowledge of the alleged murder. To attract charge under Section 212 of IPC, there must be an offender who has to be harboured. Until and unless A-1 is convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC, he will not become an offender as he is presently only an accused. To attract the offence under Section 212 of IPC, it is necessary to establish the commission of offence, 4 Crl. P. No.9798 of 2021 harbouring or concealing the person known or believed to be the offender and further such concealment must be with the intention of screening him from legal punishment. The same are lacking in the present case. According to him, the police have implicated the petitioner herein in a false case. With the said submissions, he sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein/A14 in S.C. No. 1094 of 2019. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/A- 14 has also relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of H.P.1; He also relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Mukesh2; .
He also relied upon the judgment of Madras High Court reported in S. Dhanavel Vs. State Inspector of Police3.
6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent, and also Public Prosecutor on instructions would submit that prima facie there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. He has 1 (1999)2 SCC 288 2 (2006)13 SCC 197 3 2012(1)RLR (Criminal) 334 5 Crl. P. No.9798 of 2021 supported A-1 in the commission of offence. Some of the accused were present in the house of petitioner/A-14. LW.65 along with LWs 56 and 57 panch witnesses were proceeded to the house of petitioner/A14 at Buddanagar, Boduppal and apprehended A-12 to A-15 on 29.11.2018. They have confessed about the commission of offence along with other accused. Mobile phone of petitioner/A14 was also seized. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure and laid charge sheet against the petitioner/A14 herein. The defences taken by the petitioner cannot be considered in a petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, and the petitioner has to take the said defences during the course of trial. It is for the trial Court to consider the same. With the said submissions, both of them sought to dismiss the present petition.
7. In view of the above said rival submissions, it is relevant to note that prima facie there are certain specific allegations against the petitioner herein. He is resident of 6 Crl. P. No.9798 of 2021 Boduppal. He is working as a clerk in Advocate's office. He knows A-1 since last 10 years. He is guiding A-1 in all issues relating to Court and other matters. Even prior to the incident, he had filed Writ Petition through a Counsel to quash the proceedings in Crime No.844 of 2018 against A-1. A-1 also informed about facing financial crisis in his Login Media business. A-1 has informed A-14 that the deceased and others were forcing him to clear off the liabilities. Even on 21.11.2018, A-1 has telephonically informed the petitioner expressing his desire to surrender before the police and the petitioner herein suggested A-1 to hide himself. The Investigating Officer has collected CDR details. Some of the accused were present in the house of A-14. Police have arrested the petitioner herein along with A12, A13 and A15 on 29.11.2018 from the house of the petitioner herein. Thus, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein that he has assisted A-1 in commission of the offence. The allegations relate to a heinous offence of murder/rioting/harbouring with criminal conspiracy by using deadly weapons with hire killers.
7 Crl. P. No.9798 of 2021
8. It is relevant to note that Section 212 of IPC deals with harbouring offender. It says that whenever an offence has been committed, whoever harbours or conceals a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment. Therefore to attract the said provision, two ingredients are essential i.e. commission of offence, harbouring or concealing a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender and such concealing must be with an intention of screening him from the legal punishment.
9. As stated supra, in the present case, the allegation against the petitioner herein is that, he knows A- 1 since last 10 years and he is aware of the disputes between A-1 and the deceased. On 21.11.2018, after the incident, A-1 telephonically informed A-14 about his desire to surrender before the police, but the petitioner/A-14 suggested A-1 to hide himself. The police have arrested other accused from the house of the petitioner herein on 29.11.2018. The Investigating Officer only after collecting 8 Crl. P. No.9798 of 2021 the call data of the said persons, has laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein showing him as A-14. The contents of the charge sheet and the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure constitute the above said offence under Section 212 of IPC against the petitioner herein.
10. Section 109 of IPC deals with punishment of abetment. If the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and where no express provision is made for its punishment. Section 107 of IPC deals with abetment and states that A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- (First) -- Instigates any person to do that thing; or (Secondly) --Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (Thirdly) -- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
The above said discussion would reveal that the same constitute the above said offence against the petitioner herein.
9 Crl. P. No.9798 of 2021
11. In Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of H.P., the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to examine scope and ambit of Section 212 of IPC and the ingredients of the said offence. It held that to attract the provision of Section 212 of IPC, it is necessary to establish the commission of offence, harbouring or concealing a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender and such concealing must be with an intention of screening him from the legal punishment. As stated above, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. He has suggested A-1 to hide himself, and police have arrested some of the accused from the house of the petitioner herein. He knows about the disputes between A-1 and the deceased including the business disputes. Thus, prima facie, the contents of the charge sheet constitute said offence and ingredients of Section 212 of IPC are there in the charge sheet. It is relevant to note that in the said case accused was convicted, and in the present case the matter is at trial stage. The petitioner herein has to face the trial and prove his innocence. The defence taken by him cannot be considered in a petition filed under Section 482 of Code of 10 Crl. P. No.9798 of 2021 Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the said principle is not applicable to the present case.
12. In State of M.P. Vs. Mukesh, the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to deal with scope and ambit of abetment under Section 107 of IPC. On examination of the facts, it was held that "A person, it is trite, abets by aiding, when by any act done either prior to, or at the time of, the commission of an act, he intends to facilitate and does in fact facilitate, the commission thereof would attract the third clause of Section 107 of the Penal Code. Doing something for the offender is not abetment. Doing something with knowledge so as to facilitate him to commit the crime or otherwise would constitute abetment." It is also relevant to note that in the said case the accused was convicted and the matter went to Hon'ble Supreme Court. Whereas in the present case, the matter is at trial stage. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that doing something with knowledge so as to facilitate or otherwise would constitute abetment. As discussed supra, in the present case prima facie there are specific allegations 11 Crl. P. No.9798 of 2021 against the petitioner herein. Therefore, the facts of the said case are different from the facts of the present case.
13. In S. Dhanavel Vs. State Inspector of Police, the Madras High Court on examination of facts of the case and also Section 212 of IPC held that the requirement to attract under Section 212 of IPC is that, the person whom he harbours should be believed to be an offender and the said character of the person can be proved only when he has been judicially found to be a person guilty of the offence charged. In the said case, A-3 introduced A-1, who informed the petitioner about committing of murder and, therefore, the police arrayed him as A-4. Whereas in the present case, there are prima facie specific allegations against the petitioner herein. Therefore, the facts of the said case are different from the facts of the present case.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra4, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that quashing criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint 4 . AIR 2019 SC 847 12 Crl. P. No.9798 of 2021 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 the High Court to quash the same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of the 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 the 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 a complaint at the threshold. At that stage, the only relevant question was whether averments in the complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses any prima facie offences that were alleged against the respondents. Correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only during trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to 13 Crl. P. No.9798 of 2021 Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on the 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.
15. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh5, the Apex Court referring to the earlier judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution.
16. In view of the above said discussions, prima facie there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1094 of 2019 against the petitioner herein.
5 . AIR 2021 SC 931 14 Crl. P. No.9798 of 2021
17. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
18. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 07.06.2022 BDR