Telangana High Court
S. Srinivas Babji vs The State Of Telangana on 5 May, 2020
Author: G.Sri Devi
Bench: G.Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5708 of 2019
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A-1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.321 of 2019 of Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad, which was registered against him and others for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
The facts in issue are as under:
The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant lodged a report before Chanda Nagar Police, inter alia stating therein that his father by name Thammiraju Venkata Srinivasa Rao (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), has taken one rented house at Dubey Colony, Serilingampally, for doing hotel business in the name of "Amader Ranna Ghor" for home delivery orders. Since few days, partner of his deceased father by name Srinivas quarreled with his father and demanded to give Rs.4.5 lakhs cash or handover the hotel business and the same was informed by his deceased father to his mother. On 12.06.2019 at about 9.00 P.M., his father fell down in the hotel and frost was discharged from his mouth, as such the hotel workers Hanuman Das and Ravi Kumar shifted him to Citizen Hospital, for treatment and at 2 about 10.10 P.M., the same was informed to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. Immediately, the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant and his mother T.Padmavathi, came to hospital and found his father. On 13.06.2019 at 3.38 A.M., the duty doctor declared that his father died while undergoing treatment and he found one death note in the pocket of the deceased. In the said death note 1) Srinivas Babji (petitioner-A1) (2) Venkat Inder and (3) Kishore were given emotional stress to his father to pay money or handover the hotel business and due to pressure of the above persons, his father consumed pesticide and committed suicide and died. Basing on the said report, the Police, Chanda Nagar, Cyberabad, registered a case in Crime No.321 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. against the petitioner/A-1 and others.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner/A-1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent- State and learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner/A-1 would submit that the petitioner/A-1 and deceased have got acquaintance with each other from the office of Mr.Visakha, where the deceased 3 was an employee. Thereafter, the deceased left the job and started his own hotel business a year back and used to run a hotel under the name and style as "Amadar Ranna Ghar" an online kitchen. The deceased faced lot of financial problems and unable to run the hotel business smoothly. Due to non-payment of wages on time, the employees of the deceased revolted against him and stopped the work, due to which the deceased had sustained huge loss and pressure to meet the overheads of the business. At that juncture, the deceased approached the accused seeking financial help to bail him out of the situation so that he can run the hotel. The deceased borrowed money from the petitioner/A-1 time and again for his business and issued cheques of his business account "Amader Ranna Ghor" bearing account No.1814204233 of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Himayath Nagar Branch, Hyderabad, in discharge of his liability. The particulars of cheques are as under:
Sl.No. Cheque Number Date Amount
1. 000013 15.05.2019 15,000.00
2. 000015 05.06.2019 50,000.00
3. 000016 05.06.2019 50,000.00
4. 000017 05.06.2019 50,000.00
5. 000018 05.06.2019 50,000.00
6. 000019 05.06.2019 1,30,000.00
7. 000020 05.06.2019 50,000.00
Total 3,95,000.00
4
It is further submitted that from a perusal of the above mentioned cheques, it is very clear that the business of the deceased is the proprietary concern and the deceased was the sole proprietor of the said business and there is no any kind of partnership between the deceased and the petitioner/A-1 herein at any point of time. As the deceased was expected to get money from some other source in the month of May, 2019, he issued cheques with the dates of June assuring to discharge his liability to petitioner/A-1. It is also submitted that knowing the unethical business practices of the deceased, the petitioner/A-1 distanced himself from the deceased, however the deceased kept on chasing the petitioner/A-1 for more funds for some reason or the other saying that his hotel business is in loss, but the petitioner/A-1 limited himself only to remind the debt which is already due. It is also submitted that the allegations against the petitioner/A-1 are palpably false and even if it were true it does not constitute any offence and that it is a fit case for quashment as continuation of proceedings is a sheer abuse of process of law. It is also submitted that there is no nexus between the so called offence and the petitioner/A-1 on any stretch of imagination even as per the complaint and documents filed therein; that the ingredients necessary to constitute a crime is conspicuously absent much less as required under Section 306 read with 5 Section 34 of I.P.C.; that on the cursory reading of the complaint it can be concluded that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner/A-1 and his involvement ought not to have been derived from the allegations of the complaint or from the so called documents, as such the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence of Section 306 read with 34 of I.P.C. are absent; that the petitioner/A-1 is roped into this false case only as an arm twisting device with an evil intention to bring him down to their illegal terms and conditions; that the complaint is false, frivolous and fictitious and it is full of misrepresentation of facts and suppression of material facts; that the alleged suicide note is a created one and that the petitioner/A-1 is innocent and mere presence of his name in the alleged suicide note is neither a conclusive proof of his guilt nor translate into any suspicion unless the trustworthiness and credibility of suicide note is established. In support of his contentions he relied on the following judgments.
1. In Re: Nandipamula Anjayya and others vs. unknown1
2. Shri Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi2
3. Vedprakash Bhaiji v. State of M.P.3 1 1970 Crl.L.J. 1681 2 AIR 1983 SC 826 3 1995 Crl.L.J. 893 6 Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant would submit that the contents of the F.I.R. clearly disclose cognizable offence and the truth or otherwise of the allegations can only be decided in the course of trial and the proceedings in the above F.I.R. cannot be quashed at the threshold. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan4.
A perusal of the material on record would show that the investigation is at threshold and all the allegations cannot be looked into at the time of investigation. Further, after considering the various decisions including the decision of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal case5, I am of the view that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest of the petitioner/A-1 unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernable from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the police to investigate a case. From a perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioner.
4 AIR 2008 SC 1923 5 1992 SCC (Crl) 426 7 However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the petitioner/A-1 has not obtained bail in the instant crime till today, he is directed to appear and surrender before the Court below on or before 01.07.2020 or immediately after the lock down period is completed, whichever is earlier, and apply for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day, in accordance with law. Till such surrender, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner/A-1. However, in case, the petitioner/A-1 did not appear before the Court below on or before 01.07.2020 or immediately after the lock down period is completed, whichever is earlier, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 05.05.2020 gkv