Telangana High Court
Cherla Bhumanna vs The State Of Telangana on 25 November, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8391 OF 2024
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Mr. T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.
2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.93 of 2024 pending on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases at Nampally, Hyderabad.
3. The petitioners herein are A.1 to 3, A.5 to A.7 in the said case. The offences alleged against them are under Sections - 427, 186 of IPC and under Section 3 and 5 of prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short, 'PDPP Act').
4. Basing on the complaint dated 22..09.2016 at 09.30 hours lodged by Respondent No.2, I Town Police Station, Adilabad registered a case in Cr.No.334 of 2016 against the petitioners. The allegations leveled against the petitioners are that 2nd respondent is a Driver of TSRTC. On 22.09.2016 he was on duty. At 3.30 hours, he started from Nizamabad and at 7.45 A.M. reached Adilabad 2 without knowing that there was bundh call at Adilabad. He informed the said fact to the Depot Manager, who instructed 2nd respondent not to take the passengers and to return. On that he along with Conductor T.Gopal, while returning, at NTR Chowk, two persons came on motor cycle having BJP flag and demanded to stop the bus. When he stopped the bus, they got into it and one of them broke the left side window glass by hitting with brick causing damage to a tune of Rs.15,000/- and thereby obstructed their official duties and caused damage to the public property..
5. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of 2nd respondent as L.W.1, Conductor as L.W.2, Head Constable and Constables who are on duty and eye witnesses to the incident as L.Ws.3 to 6. L.W.7 and 8 are panch witnesses. L.Ws.9 and 10 are Investigating Officers.
6. It is relevant to see how far the allegations leveled against the petitioners attract the ingredients of the offences, which are extracted below:-
427. Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.--
Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.. 3
7. Section 186 of the PDPP Act deals with obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions, which is relevant and extracted below:-
186. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions.--
Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
8. Section 3 of the PDPP Act deals with mischief causing damage to public property and Section 5 of the Act deals with the special provisions regarding bail, which are relevant and extracted below:-
3. Mischief causing damage to public property (1)Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property, other than public property of the nature referred to in sub-section (2), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine.
(2)Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property being
(a)any building, installation or other property used in connection with the production, distribution or supply of water, light, power or energy;
(b)any oil installations;
(c)any sewage works;
(d)any mine or factory;
4
(e)any means of public transportation or of tele- communications, or any building, installation or other property used in connection therewith, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine:
Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in its judgment, award a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.
5. Special provisions regarding bail.--
No person accused or convicted of an offence punishable under section 3 or section 4 shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the prosecution has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release.
9. In Bhajan Lal3, the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rear cases. While examining a complaint, quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under:
"(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 5 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 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 6 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."
The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions.
10. The subject crime is registered against the petitioners herein for the offences under Sections 427 and 186 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 5 of the PDPP Act. Perusal of the statements of L.Ws.1 to 6, none of them spoke about the allegations leveled against the petitioners. In the complaint and statements of all the 7 witnesses, of the witnesses spoke about the presence of the petitioners at the place of incident and that they have damaged the window glass of the bus with a brick. Even then, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioners herein. Therefore, it is abuse of process of law.
11. One of the offences against the petitioners herein is under Section 186 of IPC. As per Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. says that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of IPC or of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Therefore, registration of crime and laying of charge sheet is abuse of process of law.
12. In the light of the aforesaid provisions and the principle laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra), continuation of the proceedings in present C.C.No.93 of 2024 against the petitioners/A.1 to 3, 5 to A.7 is abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings in the said crime are liable to be quashed.
8
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No.93 of 2024 pending on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases at Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed against the petitioners herein - accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 25.11.2024 vvr