Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Tiruvedula Venkata Sivaram vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 December, 2021
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7290 of 2021
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") is filed seeking quash of proceedings in C.C.No.136 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur, Vizianagaram District.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.136 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, who is working as Junior Assistant in the office of Tahasildar, lodged a report with the police stating that the petitioner has been frequently visiting the Tahasildar office and demanding her to give information relating to the petitions filed by him and when the de facto complainant informed him to meet the concerned in the office that he has been frequently insisting her to furnish the said information when she was discharging her duties. On 23.01.2020 in the evening, the petitioner visited the office and met the de facto complainant and demanded her to furnish the said information and thereafter wrongfully restrained her while she was returning home from her office and also intimidated her saying how she would go home without furnishing the said information and also insulted her. The said report was registered as a case in Crime No.30 of 2020 by Salur Town police for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 341, 506 and 509 IPC. The crime was investigated. Eventually, 2 having found prima facie evidence against the petitioner in proof of his complicity in commission of the aforesaid offences against the de facto complainant, the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet in the trial Court. The said case is now pending trial before the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has earlier applied for furnishing information by filing RTI application and the said information was not furnished and as such he has approached the de facto complainant, who is working as a Junior Assistant in the office of Tahasildar, to furnish the said information and the said information is not furnished. He would further submit that in order to attract the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC, there must be an assault or criminal force and there is no such allegation made that the petitioner assaulted the de facto complainant or used any criminal force against her and as such no offence punishable under Section 353 IPC is made out from the facts of the case. He would submit that the allegations regarding wrongful restraint and criminal intimidation are false and thereby prayed for quash of the aforesaid proceedings against the petitioner.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Criminal Petition. He would submit that there is a clear allegation that the petitioner repeatedly obstructed the de facto complainant in discharge of her duties while she was on duty by demanding her to furnish information sought for by him and when she informed him to approach the concerned to seek the said information that he has also restrained her while she was returning home and intimidated her saying how she would go home without furnishing the information and also insulted her and 3 as such the facts of the case clearly show that there has been a criminal force used against her and as such the facts of the case clearly constitute the offences punishable under Sections 353, 341, 506 IPC. So, he would submit that the matter requires trial to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the said allegations during the course of trial. He would finally submit that this is not a fit case for quash of the proceedings. Therefore, he would pray for dismissal of the same.
I find considerable force in the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The facts of the case show that while the de facto complainant, who is a Junior Assistant working in the office of Tahasidar, was discharging her official functions and was on official duty, the petitioner has been repeatedly approaching her and insisting her to furnish information sought for by him. Even when she informed him to approach the concerned in the office to seek the said information, he persisted her to furnish the said information. Ultimately, on 23.01.2020 evening, when he visited the office and when the de facto complainant was returning home, he has also restrained her insisting her to furnish the said information and he has also intimidated her as saying as to how she would go home without furnishing the said information to him. So, these allegations clearly show that the petitioner has not only restrained her from going home but also threatened her saying how she would go home without furnishing the said information to him. It clearly shows that there has been a criminal force used against her in the said facts and circumstance of the case. Section 351 defines assault. Explanation appended to it clearly shows that when the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or 4 preparations amount to an assault. When the petitioner has restrained her and also intimidated her saying how she would go home without furnishing the said information to him, it amounts to using criminal force or making assault against her. Therefore, the facts of the case clearly attract the offences punishable under Section 353, 341, 506 IPC prima facie. So, the matter requires trial to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations and it is for the trial Court to take a call on the same after recording evidence and appreciating the same in the final adjudication of the matter. At this stage, there is absolutely no material emanating from the record warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings of the charge sheet. As it is a matter relating to assault against a public servant in discharge of her official duties, the Court is not inclined to interfere in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Criminal Petition lacks merit and it is liable to be dismissed. At the time of final adjudication, without being swayed away by any of the above observations, the trial Court has to independently appreciate the evidence on record that is recorded and dispose of the case.
Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 17-12-2021 AKN 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7290 of 2021 Date: 17-12-2021 AKN