Telangana High Court
Shanigaram Parushuram vs The State Of Telangana, on 8 April, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5907 of 2022 and 10413 of 2024
COMMON ORDER :
These Criminal Petitions are filed by the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 4 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.4490 of 2020 on the file of the learned VII Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad (for short 'trial Court'), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 341, 186, 120-B and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property, 1984 (for short 'Act').
2. Since both the criminal petitions are arising out of C.C.No.4490 of 2020, both the criminal petitions are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant is the Deputy Commissioner of GHMC, Circle No.23, Moosapet. The T.S. Housing Board has given an open land admeasuring 191.60 square yards situated between MIG-30, MIG-29/F-1/F-3/F-5, Chaitanya Food Court back side, 3rd Phase, 2 KPHB Colony, to the GHMC, Circle No.23, for the purpose of public activities at free of cost. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4, who are adjacent land holders, in criminal conspiracy with each other have trespassed into the GHMC land with an intention to grab the same and raised illegal constructions. On knowing the same, when de facto complainant along with LW-2/Chilla Sridhar Prasad and LW-3/Koyyada Kumar tried to prevent the illegal constructions, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 with a common intention have wrongfully restrained them, obstructed their duties and threatened them with dire consequences. Basing on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, the Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.225 of 2020 for the aforesaid offences. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the trial Court. The same was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.4490 of 2020.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have nothing to do with the offences alleged against them. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners and the ingredients of offences alleged against them are not made out. He further submits that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 4 are Journalists. The petitioner- accused No.2 is the brother of petitioner-accused No.4. Being Journalists, they have been active in bringing issues pertaining to 3 illegal, unauthorized constructions and land grabbing disputes to light that involved Government officials by taking bribe. In order to gag the petitioners, a false case has been foisted against them by the de facto complainant.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that to initiate any criminal proceeding against the accused under Section 186 of IPC, the complainant has to file a private complaint as contemplated under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. and the Court cannot take cognizance unless a public servant files a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Since the prime offence under Section 186 of IPC is barred by Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., the whole proceedings are without jurisdiction, and thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4. All the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. For the sake of convenience, Section 186 of IPC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder. 4
186. Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Courts shall take cognizance-
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive)of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(ii)of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate..."
9. According to Section 195 of Cr.P.C., under Sections 172 to 188 of IPC, a complaint in writing should be given by a concerned public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. As per Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., a "complaint" means an allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with the intention of initiating action under the Code, that a person, known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the material on record clearly depicts that there was no complaint in writing by the de facto complainant, who was an official of GHMC against the petitioners before the jurisdictional Magistrate alleging the offence under Section 186 of IPC. On the other hand, he has filed a complaint before the jurisdictional Police for investigation. The registration of a case by the Police under Section 186 of IPC 5 itself is illegal. On the date of registration of case itself, the bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. was operating and the Police has no jurisdiction even to register a case under Section 186 of IPC. Once an illegality perpetrates into the investigation, such investigation is hit by the statutory principles, then it cannot be construed as a legal proceeding or a legal investigation by the Police.
11. Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. defines "complaint" as allegations made orally or in writing to the Magistrate with a view to the Magistrate taking action on such complaint under the Code. Only on such complaint, the Magistrate can take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the procedure prescribed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has to be followed. In the present case, though there is a bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C., the Police after conducting investigation have filed charge sheet before the trial Court and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate, which is contrary to law. Therefore, the First Information Report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance on such charge sheet are without jurisdiction and the same are liable to be quashed.
6
12. In the judgment of State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy 1, at Paragraph No.8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"8. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld".
13. Reading of the above judgment makes it clear that if the offences form part of same transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C, then it is not possible to split up and hold that prosecution of the accused for the other offences should be upheld.
14. In the present case, one of the offences alleged against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 is Section 186 of IPC and the same cannot be taken of cognizance by the Court as per Section 195 of Cr.P.C. Then, the consequent alleged offences i.e., Sections 447, 427, 241, 120-B and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and Section 3 of the Act, which formed part of the same transaction are not possible to split up to hold the prosecution of the petitioners and cannot be given roof in the same crime.
15. For the foregoing discussion and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of 1 AIR 1981 SC 1417 7 criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 amounts to abuse of process of the law and the same are liable to be quashed.
16. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.4490 of 2020 on the file of the learned VII Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XXXII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
___________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 08.04.2025 rev