Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chigurupati Kalyan Chakravarthy ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 26 August, 2020
[ 3240 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY : PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2897 OF 2020 Between: Chigurupati Kalyan Chakravarthy @ Chakravarthy, S/o. Chigurupathi Shankar, R/o.8-3- 318/6/3, Chaitanya Sai Residency, Flat 101 Engineers Colony, Yellareddy Guda Near Susheel Hospital, Khairatabad Hyderabad, Srinagar colony Telangana-500073 Petitioner/Accused AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Amaravathi, Guntur District. Respondent Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.300 of 2020 on the file of SHO, Mangalagiri (Rural) P.S., Guntur (Urban) District and to release the petitioner/Accused in the event of his arrest in the interest of justice The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN Advocate for the Petitioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent, the Court made the following. ORDER:
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2897 OF 2020 ORDER:-
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.300 of 2020 of Mangalagiri (R) Police Station, Guntur Urban District for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 353, 506, 188, 269, 270, 271 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.'), and under Section Sl1(a) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (for short 'DM Act') and under Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (for short the 'E.D. Act'),
2. Heard Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state.
3, It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.07.2020 at about 4.15 P.M., while the de facto complainant, who is working as Covid Nodal Officer of NRI Hospital was performing his duty, the billing clerk by name Sambaiah came to him and informed that the accused abused in filthy language through phone. Thereafter the accused has also obstructed the complainant in discharging his duty, abused and threatened him with dire consequences and also he pushed the complainant and beat with hands and legs. As a result, the complainant received erin Re injury on his left hand. Basing on the said complaint of the doctor, crime was registered against the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence punishable under the charged sections. It is stated that complainant is not a public servant. Further he submits that the petitioner's family is affected with Covid virus and joined in the NRI hospital. When the hospital people charged heavy amounts, the petitioner asked clarification from the complainant and there is no intention on the part of the petitioner to do any of the acts as alleged. He also submits that even the injuries alleged are minor in nature and sought to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal petition and he submits that investigation in this case is still pending and he points out at the provisions of the DM Act/circular issued by the Government and submits that in view of the said provisions/circular complainant-doctor is a public servant and the petitioner is not entitled for bail.
6. In the light of the submissions made on behalf of the either parties, it is apparent to look at Sections 188 I.P.C. and 195 & 353 Cr.P.C., which read thus:
Section 188: Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.--Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation.--It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
Sec.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 Court 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, or 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;
Section 353: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses Criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted.to-be done by such 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 two years, or with fine, or with both.
7. A close reading of the above provisions strengthens the case of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that as regards the offences under Section 188 IPC is concerned, the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. applies. As per Section 195 of Cr.P.C. no Court can take cognizance of any offence alleged under Sections 172 to 188 except on the complaint made by the public servant. The complainant, who is a Doctor working in a private hospital cannot be termed as a public servant either under the provisions of the DM Act or under the any other Act. Once the petitioner is not a public servant the offence under Section 353 I.P.C. also does not attract. The other offences are also not attracted to the facts of the present case as there is no mention in the complaint about the willful intention of hurting the complainant and the act of spreading the disease by the petitioner. The offence under DM Act is concerned, Section 60 of the DM Act imposes a bar that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under the said act except on a complaint made by the National Authority, the State Authority, the Central Government, the State Government, the District Authority or any other authority or officer authorized in this behalf by that authority or Government, as the case may be. In this case, there is no complaint from any of the persons designated under the DM Act and further the complainant cannot be termed as a public servant.
To, BON
8. In view of the above discussion this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for granting bail.
9. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.300 of 2020 of Mangalagiri (R) Police Station, Guntur Urban District on execution of self bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Mangalagiri (R) Police Station, Guntur Urban DEPuTy Eon TRAN ITTRUE COPY!/ SECTION Ice F . The Station House Officer, Mangalagiri (Rural) Police Station, Guntur (Urban) District One CC to SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of AP [OUT] One spare copy HIGH COURT LKJ DATED: 26/08/2020 ORDER CRLP.No.2897 of 2020 ALLOWED