Telangana High Court
Cheruku Venkata Ramana Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 13 July, 2022
Author: Chillakur Sumalatha
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
Criminal Petition No.6102 of 2022
ORDER:
Seeking to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioner, who is arrayed as the accused in Crime No.56 of 2022 of Komaravelli Police Station, Siddipet District, the present Criminal Petition is filed.
2. Heard the submissions of Sri K. Govind, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, who is representing respondent No.1.
3. In the light of the limited relief sought for, issuance of notice to respondent No.2 is felt not necessary.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence whatsoever much less offences punishable under Sections 353 and 332 of I.P.C. and indeed the petitioner questioned the Police Officer as to why he is taking video through mobile phone and the police officer got aggrieved and gave a false complaint.
2
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor states that the petitioner, besides damaging the mobile phone of the Head Constable, pushed the defacto complainant forcibly and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 332 of I.P.C. He also states that the petitioner/accused is involved in five criminal cases earlier.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that no further orders in this criminal petition are required, except directing issuance of notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. before effecting arrest. For that, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor states that Police Officer has a right to arrest any person in case the said person commits offence in his presence.
7. In the case on hand, it is clear that the police officers, including the defacto complainant, has not effected the arrest of the petitioner at the place of alleged offence at the alleged time when the offence was committed and the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner/accused earlier are bailable in nature. Thus, as 3 of now, there is requirement of the concerned Police Officer/Investigating Officer to follow the ingredients of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused can be considered.
8. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
(1) The Station Officer, Komaravelli Police Station/Investigating Officer, shall follow the procedure established by law while effecting arrest of the petitioner/accused, in case such arrest is required.
(2) The Station Officer, Komaravelli Police Station/Investigating Officer, shall follow the ingredients of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C while doing so.
(3) The Station Officer, Komaravelli Police Station/Investigating Officer, shall also oblige the 4 directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar1. (4) The Station Officer, Komaravelli Police Station/Investigating Officer, shall not insist on the personal appearance of the petitioner/accused during the course of investigation, in case he is represented by an Advocate. In case, such requirement is there, a notice to that effect shall be issued in writing indicating the reason for his appearance.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ DR. CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J 13.07.2022 JSU 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273