Telangana High Court
Smt. Malini Alexander, vs The State Of Telangana, on 15 February, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2308 OF 2018
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in P.R.C. No.3 of 2017 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.
2. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 5 in the said PRC. The offences alleged against them are under Sections - 3 (viii) (x) (xv) and 3 (2) (i) (ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short 'Act').
3. Heard Mr. V. Pattabhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.
4. Perusal of the record would reveal that originally a complaint under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent No.2 herein before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioners herein and one Mr. Bijay Dhoda, and the learned Magistrate had referred the said complaint under 2 KL,J Crl.P. No.2308 of 2018 Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. to Banjara Hills Police Station for investigation and report. Pursuant to the same, a case in Crime No.926 of 2014 was registered for the aforesaid offences by the Banjara Hills Police Station. Later, the said complaint was forwarded to the Central Crime Station Police Station, who in turn re-numbered it as Crime No.315 of 2014 for the aforesaid offences and took up the investigation. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had filed a final report under Section - 173 of Cr.P.C. on 20.04.2016 stating that there is 'lack of evidence'. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of respondent No.2 as LW.1, his wife as LW.2, his son aged 16 years as LW.3, his daughter aged 15 years as LW.4 and Mr. Batti Venkata Balakrishna, who is a circumstantial witness, as LW.5 and Mrs. O. Padma as an eye-witness as LW.6. On consideration of the entire material on record and also considering the fact that four crimes were registered against respondent No.2 and his family members on the complaint lodged by petitioner No.1 herein, the Investigating Officer filed a final report referring the case as 'lack of evidence'. Thereafter, respondent No.2 herein had filed a protest petition. Vide order dated 3 KL,J Crl.P. No.2308 of 2018 23.02.2017 the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the protest petition and issued summons to the petitioners and another.
5. Mr. V. Pattabhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of above six witnesses and on consideration of entire material, filed the final report under Section - 173 of Cr.P.C. on 20.04.2016 and found that there is lack of evidence. Respondent No.2 herein had filed protest petition reiterating the contents of the complaint, even then the Court below without considering the same and without giving any reasons to differ with the findings of the Investigating Officer and the final report, took the cognizance on 23.02.2017. There is no reason given by the Court below while taking cognizance of the said protest petition. According to him, there are disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.2 with regard to the servant quarter which was provided to respondent No.2 by the husband of petitioner No.1 i.e., Dr. Mohan Alexander. The said aspects were considered by the Investigating Officer and a final report was filed. There is no error in it. Even then, without any reason, the Court below has taken cognizance of the protest petition, which is nothing but abuse of process of law. Respondent No.2, who is a 4 KL,J Crl.P. No.2308 of 2018 tenant, is trying to implicate the petitioners herein in criminal cases to settle his grudge. With the said contentions, he sought to quash the proceedings in P.R.C. No.3 of 2017.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Investigating Officer has not considered several aspects while conducting investigation and, therefore, respondent No.2 has filed protest petition in accordance with law. The learned Magistrate considering the contents of the protest petition including the documents filed along with protest petition, took the cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons to the petitioner and another. There are several triable issues. The petitioners have to face trial and prove their innocence. Instead of facing trial, they have filed the present petition. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the present petition.
7. Perusal of the record would reveal that Dr. Mohan Alexander is the owner of the quarter, while respondent No.2 is the watchman / servant of the said quarter. The wife of respondent No.2 i.e., Smt. Seelam Rani, was also working in the said quarter. Disputes arose between Dr. Mohan Alexander and his first wife, Smt. Kalpana 5 KL,J Crl.P. No.2308 of 2018 on account of alleged relationship of Dr. Mohan Alexander with petitioner No.1 herein. The said Mrs. Kalpana had obtained decree of divorce with Dr. Mohan Alexander and left the said quarter. After the said divorce, Dr. Mohan Alexander married petitioner No.1 herein. Later, differences arose between petitioner No.1 and the said Dr. MohanAlexander and that led to their separation and both of them started residing in separate portions. Finally, Dr. Mohan Alexander left India. Since then, disputes started between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 as petitioner No.1 requested respondent No.2 to vacate the servant quarter. There were quarrels on many times. Crime Nos.767 of 2009 for the offence under Section - 354 of IPC, 809 of 2011 for the offences under Sections - 324 and 356 of IPC, 309 of 2009 for the offences under Sections - 506 and 509 of IPC and 956 of 2010 for the offences under Sections - 324 and 509 of IPC were registered by the Banjara Hills Police Station on the complaint lodged by petitioner No.1 against respondent No.2 and his family members.
8. Perusal of the record would further reveal that on the complaint lodged by petitioner No.1, Banjara Hills Police Station have registered a case in Crime No.767 of 2009 against respondent No.2 for the offence under Section - 354 of IPC. On completion of 6 KL,J Crl.P. No.2308 of 2018 investigation, the Investigating Officer had laid charge sheet against respondent No.2 vide S.C. No.160 of 2010. However, respondent No.2 was acquitted vide judgment dated 08.07.2013.
9. On the complaint lodged by petitioner No.1, Banjara Hills Police Station, have registered a case in Crime No.890 of 2011 against respondent No.2, his wife and minor children for the offences under Sections - 324 and 354 of IPC, and the same was transferred to CCS, DD who in turn re-registered a case in Crime No.293 of 2011 and took up for investigation. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.73 of 2018 and the same is pending.
10. Likewise-, on the complaint lodged by petitioner No.1, the very same Banjara Hills Police Station registered a case in Crime No.309 of 2009 for the offences under Sections - 506 and 509 of IPC against respondent No.2 and his family, and the same was closed as 'lack of evidence'. Similarly, on the complaint lodged by petitioner No.1, the very same police station has registered a case in Crime No.956 of 2010 against respondent No.2 and the same was transferred to CCS, DD who in turn re-registered a case in Crime No.295 of 2011. 7
KL,J Crl.P. No.2308 of 2018 After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.119 of 2014 and the same is pending.
11. On the complaint under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner No.1 against respondent No.2 and his wife for the offence under Sections - 498A and 109 IPC, the learned XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has taken it on file vide C.C. No.24 of 2011. However, the same was dismissed for default. Against the said dismissal order, petitioner No.1 filed an appeal with condone delay petition in Crl.M.P. No.770 of 2021 before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge and the same was also dismissed on 05.01.2021. As against the said order, petitioner No.1 preferred revision before this Court vide Crl.P. No.12984 of 2011 and the same was also dismissed on 15.12.2011.
12. While so, respondent No.2 has filed a complaint under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioners herein for the offences under SCs/STs Act and the same was referred to Banjara Hills Police Station for investigation and report who in turn registered a case vide Crime No.926 of 2014. Later, the said case was transferred to CCS 8 KL,J Crl.P. No.2308 of 2018 Police Station who in turn registered a case vide Crime No.315 of 2014 and took up investigation. The Investigating Officer on completion of investigation filed a final report closing the complaint for 'lack of evidence'. As against the said final report, respondent No.2 had filed a protest petition before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate having considered the same, took the cognizance of the protest petition against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences. It is relevant to re-produce the said docket order which is as under:
"Dated 23.02.2017 Heard. Perused the record. Complaint is taken on file U/s 3
(viii) (x) (xv) & 3 (2) (i) (ii) of SC, ST Act against A1 to A6.
Issue Summon to A1 to A6 on process. Call on 18-04-2017."
13. The learned Magistrate without giving any reason, more particularly differing with the final report filed by the Investigating Officer, mechanically took the cognizance of the offences vide docket order dated 23.02.2017. There is no reason given by the learned Magistrate. While, the petitioners herein have not challenged the said docket order dated 23.02.2017 and have challenged the proceedings in 9 KL,J Crl.P. No.2308 of 2018 P.R.C. No.3 of 2017, this Court has an inherent power under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. to go through the entire record while granting relief.
14. As stated above, the disputes between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are with regard to the quarter under occupation of respondent No.2. According to petitioner No.1, respondent No.2 is a watchman and he is taking advantage of the disputes between petitioner No.1 and her husband Dr. Mohan Alexander, who stays Abroad. According to the petitioners, petitioner No.1 requested respondent No.2 herein to vacate the said quarter, for which respondent No.2 refused saying that petitioner No.1 is not the owner of the said quarter and that Dr. Mohan Alexander is the owner of the same. Thus, the disputes are with regard to the said quarter. Neither Dr. Mohan Alexander nor petitioner No.1 has initiated any proceedings seeking eviction of respondent No.2 from the said quarter. Petitioner No.1 is the second wife of Dr. Mohan Alexander. Petitioner No.2 is the daughter and petitioner Nos.3 and 5 are brothers of petitioner No.1 while petitioner No.4 is the wife of petitioner No.3. There are no allegations, much less specific allegations against petitioner Nos.2 to 5 herein. As discussed above, the learned 10 KL,J Crl.P. No.2308 of 2018 Magistrate without giving any reasons, more particularly, the reasons differing with the final report filed by the Investigating Officer, took the cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioner vide docket order dated 23.02.2017.
15. It is settled law that Magistrate while taking cognizance based on a protest petition has to give specific reasons for differing with the final report filed by the Investigating Officer in a particular crime. The learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence in a protest petition mechanically. Whereas, in the present case, the learned Magistrate did not give any reasons while taking cognizance in the docket order dated 23.02.2017. Perusal of the protest petition would reveal that there is no material or specific reason given to suggest that the petitioners herein have insulted respondent No.2. Therefore, the contents of the protest petition lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners herein. Admittedly, there are disputes between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 with regard to the vacation of the said quarter. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings in P.R.C. No.3 of 2017 is nothing but abuse of process of Court and, therefore, the same are liable to be quashed.
11
KL,J Crl.P. No.2308 of 2018
16. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed, and the proceedings in P.R.C. No.3 of 2017 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed against the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 5 only.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 15th February, 2022 Mgr