Telangana High Court
Yasam Pocham, Adilabad Dist. vs Sho, Ps Mancherial, Adilabad Dist. Ano on 20 September, 2022
Author: D. Nagarjun
Bench: D. Nagarjun
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5001 OF 2016
ORDER:
This petition is filed seeking quashment of Charge sheet in C.C.No.162 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mancherial, Adilabad District cognizance of which was taken against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 354-D, 509 and 506 IPC .
2. The facts in brief as can been seen from the charge sheet are that on 01.01.2013, the duty medical officer of the Area Hospital, Mancherial has sent a requisition to a police in respect of a medical legal case on which police have visited the Area Hospital, Mancherial and recorded the statement of the victim/LW.1. The contents of the recorded statement are that the victim has been working as a Warden, ST Girls Hostel for the last three years and she is under the control of ATWO Pocham. He used to harass her for departmental issues and demand for sexual favour. He also used to misbehaved. In the year 2009, the victim has informed the same to D.D. APW. The petitioner used 2 to harass her on one pretext or the other and used to submit reports against her and on the report of the petitioner the victim was transfer to Bejjur Girls Hostel. Even after that the petitioner used to pressurize her. He also developed grudge against her. He used to misbehave her and torture her in respect of departmental works. He also stated that if she cooperates for sexual favour he would arrange her promotion. When the victim has informed him that she will reveal everything to all the officers, the petitioner has threatened her with dire consequences. On account of increase of torture and harassment for sexual favour by the petitioner, at 4.00 p.m. on 10.01.2013, the victim has consumed paracetamol expired tablets and other tablets pills and vomited. One C. Laxmi, who was present in the room, shifted her to the Government hospital in 108 ambulance.
3. Basing on the statement of the victim a case in Crime No.14 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 509 and 506 IPC was registered and issued FIR and police have completed the investigation and during which they found that the petitioner was harassing her for sexual favour on 3 account of departmental issues and thereby charge sheet is filed alleging that the petitioner has committed the offence under Sections 354D, 509 and 506 IPC.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the quash petition is filed on the following grounds:
a. The victim has developed grudge against the petitioner as the petitioner was appointed as an enquiry officer against the complaints received from the students against respondent No.1/victim. His enquiry has revealed that the victim has misappropriated the funds and she has arrogant. On the basis of the enquiry report, the de-facto complainant has transferred on which she has developed grudge and started making false complaint against the petitioner to the higher authorities.
b. Subsequent to the registration of the FIR against the petitioner, the relatives of respondent No.2 have trespassed into the house of the petitioner and damaged the house hold articles and therefore, on a complaint given by the petitioner a case in Crime No.16 of 2013 was registered against the relatives of respondent No.2 for the offence 4 under Sections 447, 427, 506 read with 34 IPC and charge sheet is filed and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.250 of 2015 and the same is pending.
c. The relatives of respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 and their counsel have approached the petitioner and his wife and stated that in order to continue friendly relations they do not want to continue the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, in both the cases i.e., the case against the petitioner on the complaint given by the victim and also the case against the relatives of the victim in C.C.No.250 of 2015 were agreed to be compromised by way of filing compromise petitions. Accordingly, on the day of recording the compromise, the petitioner, respondent No.2 and his family members have come. Initially, C.C.No.250 of 2015 was called before the Lok Adalath bench wherein the petitioner has reported no objection for compromise. Accordingly, after award was passed, the relatives of respondent No.2 have left the place. However, when C.C.No.162 of 2015 is called, respondent No.2 and her relatives are not present and therefore, C.C.No.162 of 2015 could not be compromised.5
d. The contents of charge sheet do not disclose commission of any offence and therefore ultimately prayed the Court to allow the petition and quash the criminal case.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and perused the record.
6. Now, the point for determination is whether the charge sheet in C.C.No.162 of 2015 against the petitioner can be quashed?
7. According to the victim, the petitioner, who admittedly a superior officer to her, has harassed number of times in the departmental issues and sought for sexual favour. The petitioner has not filed copy of the statement recorded by the police in the hospital. The petitioner has also not filed statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, basing on the material available before the Court, orders are being pronounced.
8. However, the police in the charge sheet have mentioned as to what the de-facto complainant has stated 6 to the police in the hospital. According to the said statement, the de-facto complainant has stated that since 2009 the petitioner started harassing her seeking sexual favours. It is also stated that for not accepting the request of the petitioner for sexual favour, a false report was field by the petitioner and transferred her to different place. It is also stated that when the victim has informed him that she will reveal everything to the officers of the department, the petitioner has threatened her with dire consequences. Therefore, basing on the statement given by the victim, it is clear that the petitioner has been harassing the de-facto complainant seeking sexual favour.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted vehemently that, in fact, there were complaints against the de-facto complainant in respect of her duties and the petitioner was appointed as an enquiry officer wherein it was found that the respondent No.2 has misused the funds and also complaints received from the students. Basing on his report, the victim has been transferred to other place and since then she has developed grudge and started filing 7 false complaints and this complaint is also one of such complaints.
10. The petitioner contents that the de-facto complainant has bore grudge against him as he acted as enquiry officer and enquired into the complaints against the de-facto complainant. On the other hand, the de-facto complainant complains that the petitioner has been asking for sexual favour. Of the two versions, which one is correct, cannot be decided by this Court.
11. In order to quash the charge sheet the petitioner is expected to place material before the Court to the effect that even if the entire charge sheet is accepted to be true, then there should not have any case against the petitioner.
12. The petitioner has filed number of documents, like enquiry report and number of other documents of the departmental enquiry etc. The petitioner wanted all the documents filed by him have to be taken into consideration in order to conclude that the complaint field by the de-facto complainant is false.
8
13. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot conduct mini trial. This Court cannot go through the documents filed by the petitioner and respondent No.2 and conclude whose version is correct. Further, the de-facto complainant has admittedly consumed pills. According to the medical officer statement, the victim has consumer 10 Diazipam tablets, Amytryptillim 5 tablets and Paracetamol 5 tablets. If really the contention of the petitioner is accepted that the de-facto complainant has been sending false complaints, there is no reason why she should make an attempt to commit suicide or consume more tablets at least to threaten the petitioner. Without even consuming the tablets, the de-facto complainant could have made a complaint against the petitioner making whatever allegations she want. Therefore, the very fact that she has consumed the tablets would go to show that there is a strong prima facie material against the petitioner.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the enquiry the de-facto complainant has mentioned that she has consumed pills not against the petitioner. However, as observed above, the enquiry report and other 9 documents filed in support of the petitioner cannot be basis to conclude that the statement of the de-facto complainant is false in respect of harassment by the petitioner.
15. It is alleged that the petitioner, the de-facto complainant and the family members of the de-facto complainant have agreed to settle the disputes and accordingly the case registered against the de-facto complainant's relatives in C.C.No.250 of 2015 was settled in Lok Adalath. However, in C.C.No.162 of 2015, which is under challenge before this Court in this petition, the de- facto complainant has refused to accept for compromise. Therefore, once the de-facto complainant is not interested to get the matter settled, this Court cannot conclude that since the de-facto complainant is not extending cooperation for compromise, the main petition can be quashed.
16. Considering the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that C.C.No.162 of 2015 against the petitioner cannot be quashed.
10
17. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. D. NAGARJUN, J Date: 20.09.2022 ES