Telangana High Court
Anumula Revanth Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 19 March, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1829 OF 2020
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Mr.T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.R.Giri Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.
2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in Crime No.224 of 2020 on the file of Narsingi Police Station.
3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.1 in the said case. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 188, 287, 109, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section 11(A) read with Section 5 of the Aircraft Act, 1934.
4. Perusal of record would reveal that on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, Police, Narsingi Police Station, 2 have registered the aforesaid crime for the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC. Thereafter, they have arrested the petitioner in the said crime on 05.03.2020. They have also added section of law from Section 188 of IPC to Sections 287, 109, 115, 201 and 120B of IPC and Section 11(A) read with Section 5 of the Aircraft Act, 1934, Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 336 of IPC.
5. In the complaint dated 02.03.2020, respondent No.2 stated that on 01.03.2020 at about 03.30 P.M., while he along with his colleague Mr.J.Kumar, ARPC-8088 while attending patrolling duty near Swaroop Cricket Stadium situated at Miyakhana Ghadda, Narsingi, they have observed coverage of surrounding places with the help of Drone Camera. Therefore, he requested the police to take action. On receipt of the said complaint, police have registered a case in Crime No.224 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC.
6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of respondent No.2 as 3 LW.1, the said Mr.J.Kumar as LW.2 (eye-witness), Mr.Vamshi Krishna, Software Engineer and Mr.Mahesh Yadav, Student as LWs.3 and 4 (eye-witnesses). LWs.5 and 6 are panch witnesses of the scene of offence, LWs.7 and 8 are panch witnesses for confession and seizure of material objects. LW.9 is Sub-Inspector of Police, who assisted the Investigating Officer. LW.10 is Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsingi Police Station, who issued FIR. LW.11 is Sub- Inspector of Police, who is the Investigating Officer and arrested the petitioner.
7. In the remand case diary, it is stated that the petitioner/accused No.1 is a Member of Parliament from Congress Party and accused No.2 is his brother. It is alleged that the petitioner and his brother instructed accused No.3 to bring car and another person to capture the video of surrounding places situated at Miyakhan Ghadda, which was surrounded by the properties belong to the private persons. Thus, accused No.3 along with accused No.8 met accused No.7 (Drone Operator) in the office of accused No.1, and accused No.2, explained him, 4 bring him to Kokapet and met with accused No.6. Mr.Mungi Jaipal Reddy and accused No.6 shared the location with him. Later, accused Nos.3, 7, 8, 9 along with another person rushed to the Swaroop Cricket Stadium and fly the Drone Camera in air and started capturing video, accordingly, the petitioner and other accused moved the drone towards private properties.
8. It is further alleged that all the accused including the petitioner, hatched a plan to capture videos of farm house belongs to private persons to publish the videos in social media damaging their privacy. The petitioner and other accused have taken those images and displayed the same before public and media, thereby, violated the personal safety of the private persons and conducted the said operation illegally without any prior permission from the competent authority. Therefore, the petitioner/accused No.1 and other accused committed the aforesaid offences.
9. Mr.T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the contents of the said complaint and the statements of the 5 aforesaid witnesses lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. Without considering the said aspects, the Investigating Officer added the aforesaid offences including Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and Section 336 of IPC. The contents of the complaint and statements of the aforesaid witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. lack the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. The same are not maintainable. He has placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following cases:
i) Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat 1;
ii) Iqbal @ Bala v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2;
iii) Dinesh Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh 3; and
iv) State of Jharkhand v. Nishkant Dubbey 4.
10. Whereas, Mr.Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor referring to the counter admitted that there is no notification issued in terms of the Aircraft Act, 1934, particularly, with regard to the subject area as to whether it falls under yellow, orange or green zones. The 1 (2019) 16 SCC 547 2 (2023) 8 SCC 734 3 2024 SCC Online SC 34 4 Manu/SC/0092/2025 6 Investigating Officer considered the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, on coming to the prima facie conclusion that the petitioner has committed the aforesaid offences, arrested him and remanded him on 05.03.2020. Investigation is pending, scuttling the same at this stage is impermissible.
11. It is relevant to refer to Sections - 188, 287, 109, 115, 201, 120B and 336 of IPC and the same are extracted hereunder:
"188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.--Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which 7 may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation.--It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.
Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section."
287. Negligent conduct with respect to machinery.-- Whoever does, with any machinery, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person,or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any machinery in his possession or under his care as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machinery, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment.-- Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed 8 in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.
Explanation.-- An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment.
Illustrations: ---
(a) A offers a bribe to B, a public servant, as a reward for showing A some favour in the exercise of B's official functions. B accepts the bribe. A has abetted the offence defined in section 161.
(b) A instigates B to give false evidence. B, in consequence of the instigation, commits that offence. A is guilty of abetting that offence, and is liable to the same punishment as B.
(c) A and B conspire to poison Z. A in pursuance of the conspiracy, procures the poison and delivers it to B in order that he may administer it to Z. B, in pursuance of the conspiracy, administers the poison to Z in A's absence and thereby causes Z's death. Here B is guilty of murder. A is guilty of abetting that offence by conspiracy, and is liable to the punishment for murder.
115. Abetment of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life--if offence not committed.-- Whoever abets the commission of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this 9 Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; If act causing harm be done in consequence.-- and if any act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment, and which causes hurt to any person, is done, the abettor shall be liable to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Illustration: A instigates B to murder Z. The offence is not committed. If B had murdered Z, he would have been subject to the punishment of death or imprisonment for life. Therefore A is liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also to a fine; and if any hurt be done to Z in consequence of the abetment, he will be liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and to fine.
201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.-- Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;
if a capital offence.-- shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which 10 may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment for life.-- and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment.-- and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.
Illustration: A, knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the intention of screening B from punishment. A is liable to imprisonment of either description for seven years, and also to fine.
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.-- (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2)Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence 11 punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
336. Act endangering life or personal safety of others.--Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both."
12. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to note that in Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari District 5 relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor 6 and the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 7, more particularly, parameter No.6, which says that where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance 5 . Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26.10.2016 6 . Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009 7 . (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 12 of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious remedy to redress the grievance of the party, a learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh quashed the proceedings in the said C.C. in exercise of its power under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. It further held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission under Section - 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section - 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C.
13. As discussed supra, the Investigating Officer remanded the petitioner/accused No.1 basing on the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, material seized and the confessional statements of the co-accused.
14. Perusal of record would also reveal that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of T.Mallesh, Dugginaboyina Rajasekhar, Pichakuntla Ashok and Golia Dinesh Singh, residents of the said area. Sri 13 T.Mallesh, in his statement stated that on 02.03.2020 the petitioner conducted the press conference, wherein Sri Mangi Jaipal Reddy and Sri Gangidi Om Prakash Reddy have also participated. It is also published in newspapers and electronic media that the police have already arrested the petitioner/accused No.1.
15. Sri Dugginaboyina Rajasekhar, Sri Pichakuntla Ashok and Sri Golia Dinesh Singh, have also spoken in the very same lines.
16. The Investigating Officer also relied on the statement of Sri Marri Chandra Sekhar Reddy, President of Upparpally Village, who, stated that Sri Poreddy Praveen Paul Reddy and Sri Vijay Paul Reddy, the residents of his village, came to his shop and asked his White Colour Breeza Maruthi Car bearing No.TS-07GH-4555. On enquiry, they informed him that they have some work and they requested him to give his car. On 04.03.2020, police have seized his car and on 02.03.2020 the petitioner/accused No.1 conducted press meet at Vattinagulapali Village. The said pictures belongs to Farm 14 House of Sri Kalvakuntala Taraka Ramarao and other surrounding area. The Investigating Officer altered the section of law.
17. In the light of the same, it is relevant to refer Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and the same is extracted hereunder:
"7. Molesting a person to prejudice of employment or business.--(1) Whoever--
(a) with intent to cause any person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such person has a right to do or to abstain from doing, obstructs or uses violence to or intimidates such person or any member of his family or person in his employ, or loiters at or near a place where such person or member or employed person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, or persistently follows him from place to place, or interferes with any property owned or used by him or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof, or
(b) loiters or does any similar act at or near the place where a person carries on business, in such a way and with intent that any person may thereby be deterred from entering or approaching or dealing at such place, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.15
Explanation.--Encouragement of indigenous industries or advocacy of temperance, without the commission of any of the acts prohibited by this section is not an offence under this section.
(2) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this section except upon a report in writing of facts which constitute such offence made by a police-officer not below the rank of officer in charge of a police-station."
18. As per Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Section upon a report in writing of facts which constitute by police officer not below the rank of officer in-charge of the police station.
19. Admittedly, respondent No.2 is a Constable. Therefore, on his complaint, the Investigating Officer can't alter the Section of law to that of Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932.
20. It is also relevant to note that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.92, Home (Special) Department, dated 28.12.2019, constituting committee for identification of critical / strategically important installations in the State 16 to be retained / included in the 'Digisky Platform' in the Red and Yellow Zones at State Level. The Government has constituted the committee and the said committee has submitted a report dated 17.02.2020 to the Director (VS), IS-II Division, VIP Security Unit, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, New Delhi, along with Red and Yellow zones categorization of vital/critical installations / projects in Telangana. The subject property was not notified so far.
21. It is also relevant to note that the Central Government has framed the Drone Rules, 2021, which came into force from the year 2021 and the alleged offence took place in the year 2020. Therefore, the said rules will have prospective effect but not retrospective effect. They have no application to the facts of the present case.
22. Vide proceedings dated 01.12.2018, the Director General of Civil Aviation, New Delhi, has issued guidelines/requirements for operation of Civil Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS). The same includes controlled Airspace i.e., Danger Area, Prohibited Area and Restricted Area. Clause 18 of the said guidelines / 17 requirements deals with the Enforcement Action and the same is relevant, it is extracted:
"18. Enforcement Action:-
18.1 In case of violation of provisions of this CAR/approved operating conditions the UIN/UAOP issued by DGCA shall be suspended/cancelled.
18.2 Breach of compliance to any of the requirements and falsification of records/documents shall attract penal action including imposition of penalties as per applicable IPCs (such as 287, 336, 337, 338 or any relevant section of IPC).
18.3 Necessary action shall be taken as per relevant sections of the Aircraft Act, 1934/the Aircraft Rules, 1937 or any statutory provisions."
23. Referring to the same, Mr.T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, would contend that the Investigating Officer did not comply with the same. Therefore, police can't add Section 336 of IPC.
24. It is relevant to note that basing on the confessional statements of co-accused, police can't prosecute the petitioner/accused No.1. The said principle was also laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel (cited supra).
18
25. As per the categorical findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nishkant Dubbey (cited supra), on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, police can't register the aforesaid offence and can't add Section 336 of IPC.
26. In Dinesh Gupta (cited supra), the Apex Court considered the following aspects:
"Unscrupulous litigants should not be allowed to go scot-free. They should be put to strict terms and conditions including costs. It is time to check with firmness such litigation initiated and laced with concealment, falsehood, and forum hunting. Even State actions or conduct of government servants being party to such malicious litigation should be seriously reprimanded. In the instant case, we find initiation of criminal proceedings before a forum which had no territorial jurisdiction by submitting incorrect facts and giving frivolous reasons to entertain such complaints. A closer look at the respondent's actions reveals more than just an inappropriate use of jurisdiction. The core issue of the dispute, which involves financial transactions and agreements, clearly places it in the realm of civil and commercial law. Yet, the respondent chose to pursue criminal charges in a quest to abuse the criminal justice system with a motive to seek personal vengeance rather than seeking true justice. This unnecessary turning of a civil matter into a criminal case not only overburdens the criminal 19 justice system but also violates the principles of fairness and right conduct in legal matters. The apparent misuse of criminal proceedings in this case not only damages trust in our legal system but also sets a harmful precedent if not addressed."
On examination of facts therein, the Apex Court imposed an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- towards costs on the complainant.
27. In Iqbal @ Bala (cited supra), paragraph No.11 is relevant and the same is extracted below:
"11. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiative / registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged."20
28. As discussed supra, the contents of the complaint and the statements of the aforesaid witnesses lack the ingredients of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein. Admittedly, the subject property is not notified in terms of G.O.Ms.No.92, Home (Special) Department, dated 28.12.2019.
29. As on the date of the alleged incident, the petitioner herein was Member of Parliament from Malkajgiri Parliament Constituency. It is the specific contention of the petitioner herein is that the then Minister, Information and Technology, for the State of Telangana, implicated the petitioner in false case.
30. In Bhajan Lal (cited supra), the Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rear cases. While examining a complaint, quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down certain guidelines/parameters for 21 exercise of powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under:
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever 22 reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions.
31. In the light of the above discussion and the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, continuation of proceedings in Crime No.224 of 2020 on the file of Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad, against the petitioner/accused No.1 is an abuse of process of law and, therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed against the petitioner 23 in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C.
32. Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.224 of 2020 on the file of Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad, are hereby quashed against the petitioner herein - accused No.1 alone.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 19 March, 2025 ynk 24 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.1829 OF 2020 19 March, 2025 ynk