Telangana High Court
Dr. Dasoju Shravan Kumar And 12 Others vs N. Narender Pc And Another on 5 June, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4360 OF 2021
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 13 in Crime No.257 of 2021 dated 22.05.2021 on the file of SHO, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused for the reason of allegedly gathering at Community Health Hospital, near Bada Ganesh Khairthabad with placards demanding a hundred bed hospital. The de facto complainant, who is the police constable filed complaint stating that gathering of these petitioners/accused was in violation of the prevalent lock down orders. For the reason of non compliance of the orders issued by the Government of Telangana during Covid pandemic dated 11.05.2021, the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant filed complaint. The said complaint was filed on 22.05.2021 and same is pending investigation as on date. More than two years have lapsed since the date of registration. 2
3. On instructions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that no complaint or charge sheet was filed in the present crime. It appears that there is no progress in the investigation.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that pendency of crime was bad in law in view of bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C, which prohibits a Court from taking cognizance on the basis of a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC. Similarly, provision under Section 60 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') also prohibits the Court from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 51(B) of the Act.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners had relied upon the judgments in the case of Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab1 and and Kottu Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2. 1 AIR1962SC 1206 2 2015 (1) ALD (Crl.) 572(AP) 3
6. Undoubtedly, the criminal Court taking cognizance of the offence either under Section 188 of IPC or under Section 51-B of the Act shall be upon a complaint filed by the concerned public servant in writing. However, in the present case, the case is at the stage of investigation and there is no prohibition which comes to the aid of the petitioners either under Section 195 of Cr.P.C or under Section 60 of the Act, since no Court has taken cognizance.
7. However, as seen from the complaint, it is alleged by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant constable that these petitioners were part of a group protesting and making demand for 100 bed hospital. The complaint lacks the details of the involvement of these petitioners. Except stating that these petitioners were present at the scene, it is not mentioned as to the role played by any of these petitioners to be part of the protest group or that these petitioners had specifically either held any placards or raised any slogans. It appears that the constable had given names without giving the details of the acts of the petitioners/accused. Mere presence at the scene will not in any manner attract any of the penal 4 consequences either under Section 188 of IPC or under Section 51-B of the Act, unless the ingredients of the offences are made out. Two years have passed but the police have made no progress in the process of investigation. Section 468 of Cr.P.C prohibits taking cognizance by a court beyond the period of limitation as prescribed. Two years have lapsed and the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC is up to six months imprisonment and offence under Section 51-B of the Disaster Management Act, is punishable with imprisonment of one year. The complaint by the concerned public servant has to be filed within one year to be within the period of limitation.
8. No reasons are given by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor having taken instructions from the Investigating Officer, regarding abnormal delay in filing final report. Section 468 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked at the time of taking cognizance by the competent Court. However, when there is no narration regarding the role played by these petitioners except stating their presence at the scene, this Court finds that pendency of the proceedings against these petitioners would be an abuse of process of the Court.
5
9. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A13 in Crime No. No.257 of 2021 dated 22.05.2021 on the file of SHO, Saifabad, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 05.06.2023 kvs 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.4360 OF 2021 Dt.05.06.2023 kvs 7