Telangana High Court
Polishetty Nagishetty Arun Kumar And 2 ... vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 17 January, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8696 OF 2019
ORDER:
Heard Mr. K. Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.
2. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.763 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Nizamabad. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 3 in the said C.C. The offences alleged against them are under Section - 171C2 (a) of IPC and Section - 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with 188 of IPC.
3. As per the contents of the charge sheet, the allegation against the petitioners herein is that accused Nos.1 to 21 including the petitioners herein came to Nizamabad with a preplan to obstruct Mr. D. Srinivas, who is the contesting candidate from Congress Party to the Nizamabad Urban Assembly Constituency and took a Rally on the main road by raising slogans. They have gathered in front of Mr. D. Srinivas, staged a Dharna raising slogans saying that "D. Srinivas is Telangana Dhrohi, Potichesty Kabhardar" and that he should not contest from Nizamabad Urban Constituency. They also warned him to withdraw his nomination for separate Statehood, and thereby all of them including the petitioners herein have violated the model code of conduct and thereby they have committed the aforesaid offences. The Police, IV - Town Police Station, 2 KL,J Crl.P. No.8696 of 2019 Nizamabad, registered a case in Crime No.155 of 2010 against the petitioners and other accused for the aforesaid offences and took up investigation.
4. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against all the accused including the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences, and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.216 of 2011.
5. Mr. K. Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the contents of the charge sheet do not constitute any offence, much less the offences alleged therein and that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners herein is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. He would further submit that the witnesses cited in the charge sheet are police persons, who are interested witnesses and that the Investigating Officer has not examined any independent witness to prove the guilt of the petitioners.
6. Referring to the judgment dated 23.03.2018 in C.C. No.216 of 2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Nizamabad, the learned counsel would submit that accused Nos.5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 19 and 20 were acquitted by the trial Court in C.C. No.216 of 2011 and that the case of the present petitioners is also on the same footing. Therefore, he sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. He has also placed reliance on the order dated 03.10.2018 passed by this Court in Crl.P. No.8967 of 2018, wherein this Court referring to the decisions in Pothula Suresh v. 3
KL,J Crl.P. No.8696 of 2019 The State of A.P. [ 2011 Crl.L.J. 609] and Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2018) 11 SCC 570] held that when some of the accused in the same case found not guilty and acquitted after full-fledged trial, the proceedings against the other accused are liable to be quashed. In the present case also, accused Nos.5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 19 and 20 were acquitted after full-fledged trial in the above C.C. and, therefore, the proceedings in C.C. No.763 of 2018 against the present petitioners are also liable to be quashed.
7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that the trial Court has to consider the role played by each and every accused separately basing on the evidence available on record. Merely because some of the accused were acquitted, the same cannot be applicable to the case of the petitioners herein. He would further submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioners herein. If at all the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged against them, they have to face trial and prove their innocence, but they are not entitled to quash the proceedings in the present criminal petition.
8. In view of the above rival submissions and perusal of the record would reveal that originally the Investigating Officer, after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 21 including the petitioners herein for the under Section - 171C2 (a) of IPC and Section - 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with 188 of IPC, and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.216 of 2011. Thereafter, the said C.C. was split up against accused Nos.1 to 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16 to 4 KL,J Crl.P. No.8696 of 2019 18 and 21 vide C.C. No.732 of 2018 and proceeded with accused Nos.5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 19 and 20.
9. During the course of trial, the learned Magistrate examined PWs.1 to 3, Head Constable, Police Constable and the Investigating Officer, respectively, and marked Ex.P1. The learned Magistrate after hearing both sides and on consideration of the evidence and observing that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, police officials and Investigating Officer, is not safe to rely upon without any independent evidence. They are highly interested to succeed the case of prosecution and that the prosecution has to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. with the said findings, the trial Court arrived at the conclusion that there is no sufficient evidence against accused therein and accordingly found them not guilty of the aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 23.03.2018 and consequently acquitted them in C.C. No.216 of 2011.
10. In view of the acquittal of accused Nos.5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 19 and 20 vide judgment 23.03.2018 in C.C No.216 of 2011 and the principle laid down in Pothula Suresh and Mohinder Singh (Supra) followed by this Court in Crl.P. No.8967 of 2018, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners herein will not serve any purpose. Allegations are same, witnesses are against all the accused including the petitioners herein. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners herein and allegations are general in nature. Therefore, the 5 KL,J Crl.P. No.8696 of 2019 proceedings in C.C. No.763 of 2018 against the present petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 3 are liable to be quashed.
11. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No.763 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Nizamabad, are hereby quashed against the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 3.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 17th January, 2022 Mgr