Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G V Ravikumar vs The State Of Ap on 15 October, 2019
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Criminal Petition No.4833 of 2019
ORDER:
This petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C') is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.186 of 2019 dated 01-08-2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 506 read with 34 IPC.
2. The defacto-complainant Smt.Ch.Siva Kumari, Criminal Court Bench Clerk, Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Bhimadolu, West Godavari District submitted a complaint to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadolu alleging that on 14-06-2019 while she was discharging her duties and preparing next day cause list, Mr.G.V.Ravi Kumar and the BAR President Sri P.Rajarao came to her desk and G.V.Ravi Kumar asked her that he filed a copy application and its number is C.A.No.282 of 2019 seeking docket order in criminal petition and also petition copy of the said criminal petition, but the staff of copyist section furnished only petition copy and not issued the docket order. The said C.A was returned as there is no date from which date to which, the docket order is required, as such she complied the petition copy in Criminal Petition, but returned the said copy application for docket order, for which the Advocate G.V.Ravi Kumar shouted loudly saying that "is it proper to consider the copy application and asked to fill the numbers and comply". During that time the Bar President P.Rajarao accompanied him. As the advocates shouted on her loudly they created fear and caused mental agony to her. 2
3. It is also alleged that the 2nd respondent came to know that in the Bar meeting, the advocates referred her name and stated that she has got to be transferred along with other employees as they have got transferred Jayalaxmi and Bhavani Prasad, earlier. The complaint was referred to the District Judge, West Godavari by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadolu on 14-06-2019 and thereafter it was referred to the police, the police registered the same as a case in Crime No.186 of 2019 of Bhimadolu Police Station for the offences referred above and issued F.I.R.
4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 353 IPC, as there is no criminal force to deter public servant from discharging his/her duties, as the complaint did not disclose assault or use of criminal force to any person to deter from discharging her duties. In the absence of any allegations as to assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his/her duty and in the absence of any allegation to constitute a criminal intimidation as defined under Section 503 IPC, the registration of F.I.R against this petitioner is nothing, but abuse of process of law.
5. It is also contended that when there were disputes between the Bar members and the Judicial Officer and at the behest of Judicial Officer, this complaint was lodged by the principal staff, the second respondent herein to wreck vengeance against the members of the Bar, the petitioners and other members and requested to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
3
6. During hearing the learned counsel for petitioner would contend that while drawing the attention of this Court to a few facts of the complaint lodged with the police by the third respondent to demonstrate that those allegations do not constitute any offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 IPC. It is also contended that only due to differences between Bar members and the Judicial Officer, at the instance of the Judicial Officer such complaint was lodged with the police and as such the proceedings against these petitioners being advocates in the same court cannot be proceeded and prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 IPC in Cr.No.186 of 2019 of Bhimadolu.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that at this stage when the investigation is yet to be commenced, the proceedings cannot be quashed and that too the allegations made in the complaint by the Bench Clerk of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class clearly disclose the commission of offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 IPC and prayed to dismiss the petition, at the stage of admission.
8. A bare look at the allegations made in the complaint that disputes arose on account of non-compliance of copy application filed by the petitioner in Criminal Petition vide C.A.No.282 of 2019 and it appears that a part of the copy application was complied issuing certified copy of Criminal Petition while returning the copy application for the rest of the documents. Therefore, in that connection the petitioner abused the third respondent for non-compliance of copy application and deterred her from discharging her duties.
4
9. To constitute the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC, there must be assault or criminal force deterring a public servant from discharging his or her duties. The word Public Servant is defined under Section 21 IPC, which reads as follows:-
Every person who holds any office by virtue of which he is empowered to place or keep any person in confinement. Every officer of the Government, whose duty it is as such officer, to prevent offences, to give information of offences, to bring offenders to justice, or to protect the public health, safety or convenience.
The word Assault is defined under Section 351 of Cr.P.C as follows:-
Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.
10. The Public Prosecutor for the State, opposed the petition on the ground that the allegations made in the report lodged with the police is sufficient and at this stage of investigation, the proceedings cannot be quashed and requested to dismiss the petition.
11. As seen from the definition of the word assault, making any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person. The mere words do not amount to an assault as per explanation, but the words which a person uses, making his gestures, or preparation, those gestures amount to assault. 5
12. In the present case the petitioner who is an advocate filed a copy application. For non-compliance of the same, he had filed a criminal case against the third respondent willfully and thereby created an apprehension in her mind and such an act would constitute an assault as defined under Section 351 IPC, prima facie.
13. When the petitioner assaulted the 3rd respondent herein while discharging her duties as a public servant that amounts to deterring a public servant from discharging her duties. Therefore, the allegations made in the complaint lodged with the police constitute an offence punishable under Section 353 IPC, prima facie.
14. The other offence allegedly complained by the petitioner is under Section 506 IPC i.e., punishment for criminal intimidation. The word criminal intimidation is defined under Section 503 of IPC as follows:-
Section 503 of IPC: Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intim- idation.
15. As seen from the allegations made in the complaint it is difficult to find that the petitioner committed the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC, but based on such F.I.R when the investigation is not yet commenced, it is difficult to quash the proceedings and this Court 6 cannot express its opinion as to commission of any offence based on the allegations made in the F.I.R. The Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo1, held that the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. should not be exercised by the High Court to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court, being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Even when charge is framed at that stage, the Court has to only prima facie be satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate material and documents on records but it cannot appreciate evidence. The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. Similarly in "Kurukshetra University v. State Of Haryana2 the Apex Court reiterated the same principle. The law declared by the Apex Court in the two judgments, made it clear that normally the Court will not interdict with the process of law and cannot quash the proceedings when the investigation is not yet commenced, more 1 (2005) 13 SCC 540 2 AIR 1977 SC 2229 7 particularly when the allegations made in the complaint discloses commission of offence or allegation to constitute the offence punishable under any penal law.
16. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court, normally the Court shall not quash the proceedings when the investigation is not yet commenced. In the recent judgment of the Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. S. Martin and others3, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal4 held that when the investigation is not yet commenced, based on the allegations made in the F.I.R, the proceedings cannot be quashed.
17. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgments referred supra, it is difficult for me to accept the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner and quash the proceedings at this stage, more particularly, when investigation is at foetus stage. Hence, I find no ground to quash the proceedings and consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
18. In the result, this criminal petition is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Dated: 15.10.2019 IS 3 AIR 2018 SC 1647 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 8 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Criminal Petition No.4833 of 2019 Date: 15-10-2019.
IS