Telangana High Court
Ahmed Quadri Awais vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 8 April, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3246 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in Crime No.38 of 2022 pending on the file of Kamatipura Police Station, Hyderabad district, registered for the offences under Section 376 of IPC and Section 67 of I.T. Act, 2008. The petitioner herein is accused No.1 in the said Crime.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the Record. With their consent this Criminal Petition is disposed of, at the admission stage.
3. In the complaint dated 29-03-2022 the allegations against the petitioner herein are that he came to room of 2nd respondent, mis-behaved with her and when there was nobody in the house, he tried to assault the 2nd respondent 2 sexually. He has also threatened the 2nd respondent not to inform anybody.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has produced the statement of 2nd respondent recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In the said statement, the 2nd respondent has specifically mentioned the date, time and number of times on which the petitioner herein attempted to assault the 2nd respondent sexually.
5. Thus, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. Matter is at crime stage. Scuttling the investigation at the threshold is not permissible as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra1. In the said case, a Three-judge Bench of the Apex Court laid certain conclusions, for the purpose of exercising powers by High Courts under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C and also Article - 226 of the Constitution of India, which are as under: 1
. AIR 2021 SC 1918 3 "....
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the 4 judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the 5 self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."
6. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh2, the Apex Court referring to the earlier judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution.
2 . AIR 2021 SC 931 6
7. In view of the above discussion and the principle laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid crime at this stage.
8. Sri T. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the alleged incident took place when the 2nd respondent was 9 years old and at present she is 21 years. Thus, there are several factual aspects to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. This Court cannot consider the same in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., as held by the Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra3. In the said case it was categorically held that quashing criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was 3 . AIR 2019 SC 847 7 open to the High Court to quash the same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of the complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere. The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing a complaint at the threshold. At that stage, the only relevant question was whether averments in the complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses any prima facie offences that were alleged against the respondents. Correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only during trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the 8 contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on the ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.
9. In view of the said discussion, this Criminal Petition dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.
___________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J April 08, 2022 PN 9 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.3246 of 2022 April 08, 2022 PN