Telangana High Court
Ahmed Mohiuddin vs Mrs. Shabana Yasmeen on 4 March, 2022
Author: Chillakur Sumalatha
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11853 of 2015
ORDER :
1. This criminal petition is filed challenging the order of the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Petition No.52 of 2015, dated 06.07.2015.
2. Heard the submission of the petitioner who appeared in person, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor who is representing respondent No.9. Despite service of notice upon respondents 2 to 8, none appeared to represent them.
3. The sequence of events as could be gathered through the material available on record are that the petitioner herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Court of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against respondents 1 to 8 and one Khaja Nizamuddin that they committed offences 2 Dr.CSL, J Crl.P.No.11853 of 2015 punishable under Sections 324, 383, 506, 120B r/w.34 IPC. Recording the sworn statement of the petitioner and the witnesses produced by the petitioner, the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad through order dated 28.01.2015, held that there are just grounds to proceed against Khaja Nizamuddin, who is arrayed as accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC and accordingly ordered summons to him. The complaint stood dismissed against respondents 1 to 8 herein who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 9. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order passed against those persons, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition vide Crl.R.P.No.52 of 2015 before the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, by order dated 06.07.2015, opined that there is no prima facie material that is put-forth by the petitioner to take cognizance of the offences against accused Nos.2 to 9 and with the said observation, dismissed the revision petition confirming the order of the Court below. Aggrieved by the 3 Dr.CSL, J Crl.P.No.11853 of 2015 said findings of the revisional Court, the petitioner approached this Court seeking to invoke its power granted under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and thereby to set aside the order of the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
4. In the light of the aforementioned factual scenario, the point that emerges for consideration is;
"Whether there exist any justifiable grounds to invoke the power granted under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order of the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.R.P.No.52 of 2015, dated 06.07.2015."
5. Making his submission, the petitioner who argued in person, contended that he filed a private complaint against Nine persons alleging that they committed offences punishable under Sections 324, 383, 506, 120B r/w.34 IPC and prayed the Court to refer the complaint to the Station House Officer, Punjagutta Police Station for investigation, but for the reasons best known, the Court instead of referring the complaint to Police, conducted 4 Dr.CSL, J Crl.P.No.11853 of 2015 inquiry, recorded sworn statements and pronounced orders taking cognizance only against accused No.1 and the said procedure is unjustifiable. On this point, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor states that the procedure adopted by the Court below is in accordance with law. Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 deals with conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings. The said Chapter commences with Section 190 Cr.P.C. and concludes with Section 199 Cr.P.C. Section 190 Cr.P.C. lays down that any Magistrate of First Class and any Magistrate of Second Class specially empowered by the Code (Criminal Procedure Code) may take cognizance of any offence under three circumstances. Firstly, upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; secondly, upon a Police report of such facts and thirdly, upon information received from any person other than a Police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
5
Dr.CSL, J Crl.P.No.11853 of 2015
6. Section 156 Cr.P.C. lays down the circumstances under which a Police Officer can exercise his power to investigate cognizable cases. It says that a Police officer is empowered to investigate a cognizable case in which he has power to investigate and he can exercise such a power when any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 Cr.P.C. makes an order to do so. Nowhere in the Criminal Procedure Code it is laid down that when a private complaint is filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction, the Court should mandatorily refer the same to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Court is well empowered to record the sworn statements of the complainant and other persons produced before it and can take decision on its own. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the objection raised by the petitioner in this regard holds no water.
7. A perusal of the complaint that is given by the petitioner goes to show that the entire dispute revolves upon a matrimonial issue. The petitioner i.e. the de facto 6 Dr.CSL, J Crl.P.No.11853 of 2015 complainant has arrayed his wife as accused No.2. He alleged that the first accused who is the brother of his wife, the third accused and the fifth accused who are her relatives, trespassed into their house on 20.12.2009 and forcibly took her away i.e. accused No.2 and children from the house. He further alleged that on 09.09.2013, the first accused accompanied by two other unknown persons, restrained him while he was returning on a Scooter from his Advocate's office near the bus stop located at Rajbhavan Road, attacked him with knives and caused bleeding injuries. He contends that this was done by a pre-arranged plan of accused Nos.1 to 9. However, considering the sworn statements given by the petitioner herein and the witnesses he produced, the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in his order, made a mention that the allegation itself is that the first accused is accompanied by two unknown persons and that there are no specific allegations at least to establish the alleged ingredients of Criminal Conspiracy. Hence, the involvement of the other accused except 7 Dr.CSL, J Crl.P.No.11853 of 2015 accused No.1, cannot be presumed. Hearing the petitioner herein, the revisional Court also took the same view. This Court, entertaining this petition and having heard the petitioner who argued in person at length, does not find sufficient material or convincing grounds to take a different view than that of the view taken by the revisional Court and the Court which took cognizance of the offences against the first accused and dismissed the private complaint against the other accused i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petition lacks merits.
8. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed.
9. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J Date: 04.03.2022 ajr