Telangana High Court
Md.Ifthekar, Hyderabad., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp Anr., on 27 February, 2023
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.P.No.10468 of 2017
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.420 of 2015, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Zaheerabad. The petitioner herein is arrayed as Accused No.3 in C.C.No..420 of 2015.
2. The case of the de facto complainant is that at about 16:00 hrs on 08.03.2015, he received a phone call from his uncle Umar Faruq intimating him that one Mr.Maroof Ali and Md.Ahmed (A-1 and A-2) have injured him on his head. There were some civil disputes pending adjudication between his uncle and adjacent land owner/A-3/Mr.Md.Iftekar and due grudge, jealousy against his uncle, accused Nos.1 and 2 attacked him, with sticks on his head and that one Mr.Md.Suleman, Chakali Narsimulu, Chakali Bagaiah and Smt Rathod unni Bai witnessed the incident and they rescued Umar Faruq. Further, upon receiving the injuries, the victim Syed Umar Faruq was taken to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. Basing on the report, the Police have 2 GAC, J Crl.P.No.10468 of 2017 registered a case against the petitioner and other accused, initially for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and subsequently, the section of law was altered to Section 326 r/w 109 of IPC and the Police have filed the charge sheet against A-3 and A-4 along with A-1 and A-2.
3. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that criminal complaint was filed against the petitioner only to harass him and initially his name did not appear in the FIR. It is also contended by the petitioner that the complaint is a concocted one and has been filed with an ulterior motive without any iota of truth and the de facto complainant is neither the victim nor eye witness and does not fall under the definition of general public, who can give information of certain offences contemplated under Section 39 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, Calendar Case has to be quashed.
4. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are civil disputes pending between the accused and the victim and filing a criminal complaint is nothing 3 GAC, J Crl.P.No.10468 of 2017 but abuse of process of law. It is also contention of the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner is resident of Aurangabad and on the alleged date of offence, he was admitted in M/s.Amin Hospital and underwent treatment for massive nasal bleeding from 08.03.2015 to 10.03.2015 and doctrine of alibi directly applies to the case. Therefore, it is a fit case to quash, the proceedings of the Calendar Case.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondents.
6. The charge sheet is filed against the petitioner and other three accused for the offence punishable under Sections 326 and 109 of IPC. The charge sheet reveals that A-4 is no more and died in the accident and therefore his name was deleted from the charge sheet.
7. Section 154 of Cr.P.C. defines that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the 4 GAC, J Crl.P.No.10468 of 2017 informant and every information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book (general diary). As per the said Section any person can give any information to the police and there is no bar for giving information only by victim relating to a cognizable offence. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the de facto complainant who is niece of the victim cannot prefer a complaint is ruled out.
8. It is the further contention of the petitioner that under Section 39 of Cr.P.C, the defacto complaints falls under the definition of 'general public'. It is relevant to mention that as per Section 39 of Cr.P.C, public can give information relating to offences covered under "sections 121 to 126, and section 130 for the offence against State.
(ii) sections 143, 144, 145, 147 and 148 for the offence against the public tranquility.
(iii) sections 161 to 165A, both inclusive for the offences relating to illegal gratification
(iv) sections 272 to 278, both inclusive for the offences relating to adulteration of food and drugs, etc.
(v) sections 302, 303 and 304 for the offences affecting life;
5
GAC, J Crl.P.No.10468 of 2017 (va) 1 section 364A offence relating to kidnapping for ransom, etc.
(vi) section 382 offence of theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to the committing of the theft;
(vii) sections 392 to 399, both inclusive, and section 402 offences of robbery and dacoity;
(viii) section 409 offence relating to criminal breach of trust by public servant, etc;
(ix) sections 431 to 439, both inclusive offences of mischief against property;
(x) sections 449 and 450 offence relating to office of house- trespass);
(xi) sections 456 to 460, both inclusive offences of lurking house- trespass) and
(xii) sections 489A to 489E, both inclusive offences relating to currency notes and bank notes."
9. The said Section is not applicable to the present case as the charge sheet is filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC which is not included under Section 39 of Cr.P.C. Furthermore, it is the contention of the petitioner that doctrine of alibi directly applies to the case on hand as petitioner was undergoing treatment as in-patient from 08.03.2015 to 10.03.2015 in M/s.Amin Hospital at Aurangabad. Admittedly, it is a mater to be adduced at the time of trial. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner has every right to raise plea of alibi before the trial Court by leading oral and documentary evidence to that effect which can be 6 GAC, J Crl.P.No.10468 of 2017 concluded by the trial Court at the relevant point of time. Therefore, it is not a fit case to quash CC at this stage.
10. In view of the above observations, this Criminal Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 27.02.2023 dv