Telangana High Court
T. Prabhakar Rao vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 7 June, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No. 16472 OF 2022
ORDER:
Heard Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. K.R. Srikanth, learned Counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri T. Panduranga Reddy, learned Counsel for 4th respondent.
2. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.16 of 2022 pending on the file of the Dummugudem Police Station, Khammam District.
3. The petitioner herein is accused No.4. The offences alleged against the petitioner herein are under sections 120(B), 121(A) IPC, Sections 10, 13, 17, 18, 20 and 40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Amendment Act, 2019 and Section 8(1)(2) of Telangana State Public Security Act, 1992.
4. The allegations levelled against the petitioner herein/A4 are that he is aiding Maoist Party activities, which is a banned KL,J 2 W.P. No.16472 of 2022 organization, through accused No.3. He has extended financial assistance of Rs.3,34,000/- to the said organization. The petitioner herein is a Sand Quarry Contractor, accused No.3 is his Supervisor and they are sympathizers of CPI (Maoist) Party, raising funds to the said organization knowing very well that it is declared unlawful association under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Therefore, the petitioner herein has committed the above said offences. The said crime was registered on 04.03.2022 on the complaint lodged by M. Ravi Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Dummugudem.
5. In this matter, it is relevant to note that on the complaint lodged by one A. Lingareddy, Police Bachupally, Cyberabad, have registered a case in Crime No.810 of 2021 against the petitioner herein for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. According to the complaint, the petitioner herein has made the said de facto complainant to believe that he has obtained sand contract and the de fact complainant will get Rs.85/- per cubic meter towards profit, out of Rs.100/- per cubic meter of sand to be sold. The petitioner herein failed to keep up the said promise and on the other hand, he has obtained said contract in the name of another KL,J 3 W.P. No.16472 of 2022 organization and he has received money from the society. Thus, he has cheated the de facto complainant and also committed criminal breach of trust.
6. On registration of said crime, the matter was entrusted to one Shiva Prasad, Inspector of Police, S.O.T., Cyberabad, to trace out the petitioner and serve notice under Section 41-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. Whereas the said Shiva Prasad, Inspector of Police, S.O.T, called his son to the office, slapped him, beat him by removing his shirt and pant and obtained cheques. The petitioner had submitted a representation to the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, with a request to take action against the said Inspector of Police.
7. With the said allegations and to quash the proceedings in Crime No.810 of 2021, the petitioner herein had filed a Writ Petition No.31118 of 2021. In view of the specific allegations and considering the specific averments in the writ affidavit, this Court, vide order dated 01.12.2021, directed the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, to consider the said representation and if he found that KL,J 4 W.P. No.16472 of 2022 the allegations made by the petitioner are true, he shall take action against the said Inspector of Police and other Police Officials in accordance with law. Instead of conducting enquiry, he has appointed Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madhapur Division, Cyberabad, as Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry. The said Assistant Commissioner of Police, has not conducted inquiry properly. The said Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, has filed counter relying on the said inquiry report. Considering various aspects, more particularly, the allegations levelled against that police officials and also considering the fact and the conduct of Investigating Officer in Crime No.810 of 2021, this Court vide order dt.25.02.2022 directed the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, to appear in person. Accordingly, he has appeared on 10.03.2022 and sought time to inform the Court with regard to proposed action in the matter. Again he has appeared on 14.03.2022 and informed the Court that he will conduct inquiry afresh and also conduct investigation in Crime No.810 of 2021 in accordance with the law. He has also informed this Court that Station House Officer, Bachupally Police Station, KL,J 5 W.P. No.16472 of 2022 who requested Inspector of Police, S.O.T., to trace out the petitioner for the purpose of serving notice under Section 41-A of Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.810 of 2021, is the 2nd person at fault, Investigating Officer in Crime No.810 of 2021 of Bachupally Police Station is the second person at fault, the Inspector of Police, S.O.T. is the 3rd person at fault and Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madhapur, who conducted inquiry is the 4th person at fault. He has proposed to take action against the said persons and to file report. Accordingly, he has filed Status report dt.18.04.2022 along with certain documents on 19.04.2022. He has also filed a Memo vide USR No. 39812 of 2022 dt.26.04.2022 along with progress of investigation in Crime No.810 of 2021 along with disciplinary proceedings including punishment imposed on the above said persons.
8. A perusal of the Memo would reveal that the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, has imposed minor punishment of censure on the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madhapur, who conducted inquiry. Against the Inspector of Police, P.S. Bachupally and S.I. of Police, KL,J 6 W.P. No.16472 of 2022 Bachupally, in Crime No.810 of 2021, he has taken disciplinary action and conducted inquiry against the Inspector of Police, S.O.T., He has framed charges on both in terms of TS CCA Rules 1991. Against Mrs. S. Padmavathi, Office Superintendent, CPO, Cyberabad, punishment of censure was imposed. The said facts would reveal that police have acted high handedly in Crime No.810 of 2021. In the said petition, for serving a notice under Section 41- A of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Investigating Officer, P.S. Bachupally, cannot seek the assistance of Inspector of Police, S.O.T. The said Inspector of Police, S.O.T., has taken the petitioner into custody at Pragathinagar, which is very nearer to Police Station Bachupally. The said Inspector of Police, S.O.T., instead of handing over the petitioner to the Investigating Officer in Crime No.810 of 2021 of Police Station, Bachupally, took him to S.O.T. office, which is far away from the police station. This is a very serious lapse on the part of the police while conducting investigation in Crime No.810 of 2021.
9. During the pendency of the said proceedings in Crime No.810 of 2021, on the complaint lodged by 4th respondent/Sub-
KL,J 7 W.P. No.16472 of 2022 Inspector of Police, Dummugudem Police Station, have registered a case in Crime No.16 of 2022 dt.04.03.2022. In the said crime the allegation against the petitioner herein is that he is sympathizer of banned Maoist Party and he is extending financial support to them through accused No.3. Recording the said submission, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader for Home to produce file. Accordingly, he has produced the file. Perusal of file including counter filed by the respondents would reveal that they have included the name of the petitioner as accused No.4 in Crime No.16 of 2022 basing on the confessional statement of accused No.3.
10. It is the specific contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that accused No.3 was supervisor of the petitioner herein for sometime. He has left the services of petitioner 3½ years back. Except telephonic conversation between accused No.3 and petitioner, there is no other proof filed by the respondents to show that the petitioner herein has committed the alleged offences. As stated supra, based on the confessional statement of accused No.3, they have included the KL,J 8 W.P. No.16472 of 2022 petitioner herein as accused No.4. They have not filed any proof or document to show that the petitioner herein has given the said amount of Rs.3,34,000/- to the Maoist Party through accused No.3. There is no evidence to that effect. It is well settled law that basing on the confessional statement of co-accused, a person cannot be implicated in a crime. The said principle was also laid down by a Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar1.
11. The above stated discussion would reveal that the police bore grudge against the petitioner herein for filing the above said writ petition wherein this Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad to appear, he has conducted inquiry and imposed punishment on the erring police officials. The said action of the respondent police is highhanded and it is deprecated.
12. In view of the above said discussion, according to this Court, there is no material produced by the respondents to show that the petitioner herein has committed the above said offence. The present case squarely falls within the parameters laid down by 1 . AIR 1964 SC 1184 KL,J 9 W.P. No.16472 of 2022 the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal2, wherein the Apex Court has also laid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of Power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the same are extracted herein:
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no 2 . 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 KL,J 10 W.P. No.16472 of 2022 investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
13. In view of the above said discussions, according to this Court, the contents of the complaint, statements of the witnesses KL,J 11 W.P. No.16472 of 2022 recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, lack the ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioner herein. Therefore, the present proceedings in Crime No.16 of 2022 pending on the file of Police Station Dummugudem, are liable to be quashed against the petitioner herein.
14. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings in Crime No.16 of 2022 pending on the file of Police Station Dummugudem, against the petitioner herein.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 7th June, 2022 Note:
As observed in paragraph No.9, Registry is directed to return the file to the learned Govt. Pleader for Home under due acknowledgment. (B/O.) BDR