Telangana High Court
K. Manjula vs The State Of Telangana on 19 July, 2023
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRIMINIAL REVISION CASE No.145 OF 2023
O R D E R:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/de-facto complainant aggrieved by the order dated 29.12.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.8051 of 2020 in C.C. No.653 of 2015 passed by the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that
(a) On 11.04.2015 petitioner/de-facto complainant filed a complaint against the respondent Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 2 and on the next day she enquired the police but they did not give proper reply. Suspecting foul play, she immediately sent a remainder dated 13.04.2015 through registered post to the Station House Officer, Kachiguda Police Station, who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet to the effect that the contents of original complaint dated 11.04.2015 were not considered by the police, due to which, Sections 354, 499 and 500 of IPC were not mentioned in the charge sheet and the same was recently noticed by the petitioner/de-facto complainant. When she was examined as PW1, the said original complaint dated 11.04.2015 2 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.145 of 2023 was not marked. As such, she filed copies of complaint dated 11.04.2015, original acknowledgment, postal receipt and postal acknowledgment of reminder dated 13.04.2015 and got marked those documents in her chief examination. Later, she came to know that the complaint dated 11.04.2015 was not considered and basing on reminder dated 13.04.2015 only the charge sheet was filed by missing the main essence of alleged offences under Sections 354, 449 and 500 of IPC. In spite of bringing the same to the notice of the Court below, additional charges were not framed, which would amount to miscarriage of law. Therefore, petitioner/de-facto complainant filed Crl.M.P.No.8051 of 2020 under Section 302(1) of Cr.P.C. seeking to permit the prosecution to be conducted/continued by the counsel engaged by her.
(b) It is contended by the petitioner/de-facto complainant before the Court below that the said complaint dated 11.04.2015 is very crucial to consider the allegations against the respondents No.2 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 2, otherwise she would be put to irreparable loss. Therefore, she requested the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor to take steps to include the additional charges but he advised to do so by engaging an advocate, as such she filed petitions under Section 24(8) and Section 216 of Cr.P.C., which were dismissed. Therefore, she 3 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.145 of 2023 filed the Crl.M.P.No.8051 of 2020 seeking to permit her to conduct the proceedings through her advocate.
(c) The respondent Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 2 filed counter before the trial court denying the allegations and stating that earlier, the petition under Section 24(8) of Cr.P.C. was filed for similar relief and the same was dismissed by the Court below. As such, the petition filed under Section 302(1) of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. It is further contended that the Crl.M.P. was filed for taking steps for filing protest petition to add additional charges to the existing charges, which is also not maintainable. Therefore, prayed to dismiss Crl.M.P.No.8051 of 2020.
(d) After hearing both sides, the Court below has dismissed Crl.M.P.No.8051 of 2020. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/de-facto complainant.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State. Perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below ought to have permitted the petitioner to engage her private advocate for taking steps for filing petition for adding additional 4 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.145 of 2023 charges, basing on the Original Complaint dated 11.04.2015 (Ex.P4) but the same was missing from the records of the Court below. Therefore, prayed to call for the records from the trial Court, further prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 29.12.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.8051 of 2020.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that there is no illegality or irregularity in the orders of the trial Court. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the criminal revision case.
6. This Court vide order dated 20.03.2023 directed the Registry to address a letter to the Court below to send remarks and report with regard to missing of original complaint dated 11.04.2015 i.e., Ex.P4 by the next date of hearing.
7. The trial Court has sent a detailed report dated 24.04.2023, which discloses that originally the petitioner is stated to have lodged a complaint before the concerned police and when they failed to register the case, subsequently she stated to have sent another complaint through registered post, on basis of the said complaint, the police registered a case in Cr.No.95 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 448 and 509 read with Section 34 of IPC against respondent No.2/accused No.1 (brother 5 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.145 of 2023 of petitioner's husband) and respondent No.3/accused No.2 (wife of respondent No.2/accused No.1). After completion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet and the Court below took cognizance of the same. The report further discloses that as per the docket proceedings dated 30.11.2015, the copies were furnished and the matter was posted for examination under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, on 28.01.2019, PW1 (de-facto complainant) and PW2 (daughter of PW1), who are the practicing advocates, got examined and Ex.P1-complaint dated 13.04.2015 and Ex.P2-CD were marked. In the evidence, PW1 deposed that the incident has happened on 11.04.2015 and she lodged the complaint on the said date. Further, she deposed that she had handed over another complaint/Ex.P1 on 13.04.2015. Later, PW3 (mother of PW1) was examined on 21.02.2019, PW4 (Investigating Officer) was examined on 28.03.2019 and got marked Ex.P3 and the prosecution evidence was closed. The case was posted for examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On 03.04.2019, both the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence and as they reported no defence evidence and the matter was posted for arguments on 09.04.2019. Later, the petitioner/de-facto complainant through the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has filed petitions in Crl.M.P.No.1164 of 2019 6 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.145 of 2023 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall PW1 and Crl.M.P.No.1165 of 2019 under Section 254(2) of Cr.P.C. to receive the documents viz. 1. Office copy of complaint dated 11.04.2015; 2. Original acknowledgment of copy of complaint dated 11.04.2015; 3. Postal receipt of Ex.P1 dated 13.04.2015 and 4. Postal acknowledgment dated 17.04.2019 of Ex.P1 and those petitions were allowed on 10.05.2019. Accordingly, PW1 was recalled and on 14.05.2019 she was further examined in chief and Ex.P4 to P7 were marked. On the same day, she was cross-examined and the matter was adjourned to 11.06.2019 for further examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P4 is the office copy of police complaint dated 11.04.2015, but not the original complaint as alleged by the petitioner/de-facto complainant. On 11.06.2019, PW1 through her counsel again filed a petition under Section 24(8) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.3606/2019 seeking to engage an advocate to prosecute her case and for taking steps for filing protest petition to add additional charges to the existing charge sheet and also another petition under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.3607/2019 to direct the Investigating authorities to add the additional charges to the existing charges, but the said petitions were dismissed by court below vide orders dt.06.12.2019. Again, the petitioner/de-facto complainant through her counsel filed Crl.M.P.No.8051 of 2020 under Section 7 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.145 of 2023 302(1) of Cr.P.C, seeking to permit the prosecution to be conducted/continued by her counsel on the very same facts and prayer of Crl.M.P.No.3606/2019 except changing the provision of law under Section 302(1) of Cr.P.C. and the said petition was also dismissed by court below on 29.12.2022, against which the present criminal revision case has been preferred.
8. The report of the trial Court discloses that nothing was missing from the Court and the petitioner/de-facto complainant is a practicing advocate and after completion of examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has filed petitions one after another, which were dismissed by the trial Court.
9. From the said report, it is also evident that Ex.P4, which was marked before the Court below is not the original document but it is the office copy of the complaint. The said copy was received by the Court below through PW1 and therefore she cannot state before this Court that the documents are missing from the Court.
10. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a practicing advocate and having legal knowledge, she cannot state before the Court that she is not aware of the procedure being followed in criminal cases. Further, the petition filed before the 8 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.145 of 2023 trial Court is at the stage of arguments and not at the stage of trial to engage her counsel. Initially, the petition which was filed under Section 24(8) Cr.P.C. was dismissed; it was not challenged by the petitioner; the said order has attained finality and for the same set of facts, another petition filed by the petitioner is not at all maintainable. This Court is of the considered view that the Court below has rightly considered the petition and there is no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. cannot interfere with the impugned order dated 29.12.2022 passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.8051 of 2020.
11. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed as devoid of merits.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 19.07.2023 TMK 9 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.145 of 2023 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY CRIMINIAL REVISION CASE No.145 OF 2023 Date: 19.07.2023 TMK