Telangana High Court
Abdul Wahab vs Smt.Zubeda Begum on 1 June, 2021
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3108 OF 2019
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings in PRC No.31 of 2018 pending on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the said PRC No.31 of 2018. The offences alleged against the petitioner herein are under Sections 333, 504 and 506 of IPC.
2.Heard Mr. C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and learned Public Prosecutor, for the 2nd respondent and perused the record.
3. As per the charge sheet, the allegations against the petitioner are as follows:-
i) The petitioner/accused was Corporator, Chadrayangutta at the relevant point of time. The 1st respondent/defacto-complainant was Tahasildar, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad district at the relevant point of time.
ii) On 17.04.2017 she along with the Mandal Deputy Inspector of Survey (L.W.2) and the Village Revenue Officer (L.W.3) at about 1.15 P.M. went to conduct survey of the Government land to an extent of 1.5acres in Sy.No.303 to 306 of Kandikal village. Some people have applied seeking regularization of the said land under G.O.Ms.No.92. The said applications were rejected earlier. The very 2 KL,J Crl.P. No.3108 of 2019 same request for regularization was made again. In view of the same, the 1st respondent/defacto-complainant along with L.Ws.2 and 3 went to the above said land in Sy.Nos.303 to 306 of Kandikal village for conducting survey. It is further alleged that at that particular point of conducting survey, driver of the petitioner was present there. On enquiry, the driver of the petitioner informed the 1st respondent/defacto-complainant that construction of function hall was going on in the said land and he is supervising the work on behalf of the petitioner. On enquiry, the 1st respondent/ defacto-complainant came to know that the function hall work was going on and construction works were also there. Thereafter, she along with L.Ws.2 and 3 has conducted survey in the subject land.
iii) At that time, the petitioner along with followers came to the said place, abused the 1st respondent and also L.W.2 in vulgar language and when L.W.2 questioned the petitioner with regard to the said abuse, the petitioner beat L.W.2 and dragged him holding his caller. While the 2nd respondent making enquiry, with regard to the said illegal acts of the petitioner, the followers of the petitioner beat L.W.2 on his ear and L.W.3 took L.W.2 to the car. Thereafter, the petitioner threatened the 1st respondent and others that he will see the end of them and it is not a big deal to him to kill them and go to jail for four days and then come out. The petitioner has also tried to attack on the 1st respondent and others with stones but they escaped from the said place. Thus, in the said manner, the petitioner has obstructed the 1st respondent and other officials from executing their official work of 3 KL,J Crl.P. No.3108 of 2019 conducting survey and beat the 1st respondent and others and also caused breach of peace and tranquility.
iv). On receipt of the complaint from the 1st respondent/ Tahsildar, Bandlaguda, the Police, Kanchanbagh Police Station has registered a case in Cr.No.66 of 2017 for the aforesaid offences. On completion of investigation, the Police have laid charge sheet against the petitioner only, since the other accused, the followers of the petitioner, were not identified. Therefore, it is mentioned in the charge sheet in PRC No.31 of 2018 that a separate charge sheet will be filed against the A.2.
v). During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has examined the 1st respondent/defacto-complainant, the L.W.2- Mandal Deputy Inspector of Survey and L.W.3-the Village Revenue Officer, Kandikal and L.W.4-Civil Assistant Surgeon, who treated the injured and recorded their statements. Basing on the said statements, the Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet against the petitioner herein.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the contents of the charge sheet would submit that the contents of the charge sheet lacks ingredients of the offences registered against the petitioner. He further submits that as per Section 333 of IPC, there should be an intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by him in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant. He would further submit that as per the charge 4 KL,J Crl.P. No.3108 of 2019 sheet, the follower of the petitioner beat the L.W.2. Therefore, there is no allegation against the petitioner with regard to the instigation and conspiracy in the alleged incident. Since the petitioner herein is a Corporator from Charndrayangutta, with a mala fide intention, he was implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that as per Section 504 IPC, there should be provocation intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence but the said ingredients are lacking in the charge sheet.
5. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the 1st respondent.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the 1st respondent was Tahsildar of Bandlaguda Mandal, at the relevant point of time and she is a public servant. The petitioner herein along with his followers came to the spot and without even considering that she is a woman and a public servant and also the fact that the L.Ws.2 and 3 are also public servants and they are discharging their official duties of conducting survey in the government land in Sy.Nos.303 to 306 of Bandlaguda village, abused the 1st respondent in filthy language and beat L.W.2-Deputy Inspector Survey and even threatened with dire consequences. Thus there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the present Criminal Petition.
7. In view of the above said rival submissions, it is opt to extract Sections 333, 504 and 506 IPC which are as follows:- 5
KL,J Crl.P. No.3108 of 2019 Section 333 of IPC:-Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty:-
Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such pubic servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 504 of IPC:-Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace:-
whoever intentionally insults and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 506 of IPC:- Punishment for criminal intimidation:
Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt etc., and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.6
KL,J Crl.P. No.3108 of 2019
8. As per Section 333 IPC, there should be voluntary cause of grievous hurt to a public servant in discharge of his official duties with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant discharging his duties as a public servant.
9. As stated above, in the charge sheet and also in the statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, the 1st respondent/defacto- complainant who is Tahaslidar of Bandlaguda Mandal, at the relevant point of time, categorically stated that she along with the LWs.2 and 3 went to the land in Sy.Nos.303 to 306 of Kandikal village for the purpose of conducting survey for demarcation and fixing boundaries the government land to the extent of 1.5acres. The petitioner, along with his followers, obstructed the said survey, abused them in filthy language and assaulted the L.W.2 and beat on ear, dragged him by holding his caller. He has threatened the 1st respondent, L.Ws. 2 and 3 with dire consequences. He along with his followers has also tried to attack them with stones but they have escaped from the said attack and the place. The Investigating officer has examined Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government ENT Hospital, Koti, Hyderabad, who treated the injured as L.W.4. It is also specifically mentioned in the charge sheet that the petitioner beat the L.W.2 and one of his followers also beat L.W.2 on his ear due to which the L.W.2 received injury and he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment and the doctors have referred him to Government ENT Hospital, Koti, Hyderabad, for further treatment. Basing on the said statement, the Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet against the petitioner herein. Thus, 7 KL,J Crl.P. No.3108 of 2019 prima facie, there are specific allegations of voluntarily causing grievous hurt with an intent to prevent or deter public servants from discharging their official duty. The 1st respondent is Tahasildar, the 2nd respondent is Deputy Inspector of Survey and L.W.3 is the Village Revenue Officer, who went to subject land for the purpose of conducting survey. Thus, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein.
10. In view of the above facts, the defence taken by the petitioner that the charge sheet lacks ingredients of the offences alleged against him cannot be looked into by this Court at this stage. Since there are several triable issues to be decided by the Court below after conducting full fledged trial. The petitioner has to face trial and put forth his defence before the trial Court to prove his innocence. The petitioner is also having remedy of filing discharge application before the Court below. Instead of doing so, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid PRC No.31 of 2018 against him.
11. In this regard, it is apt to refer to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra1, wherein the Apex Court has 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 1 . AIR 2019 SC 847 8 KL,J Crl.P. No.3108 of 2019 constitute offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court to quash same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of 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 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 complaint at threshold. At that stage, only question relevant was whether averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that were alleged against Respondents. Correctness or otherwise of said allegations had to be decided only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on 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.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the petitioner herein has failed to establish any ground for quashing the proceedings in P.R.C.No.31 of 2018 on the file of the VII Additional Chief 9 KL,J Crl.P. No.3108 of 2019 Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad by this Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the present petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.
13. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 01.06.2021.
vvr