Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. As the case stood thus, the C.D. file sent to the Public Prosecutor, PPO, XI Addl. CMM Court for opinion to finalize the case and the PPO opined as not a fit case for charging the accused person for the offence supra and there is no base even to raise a strong suspicion to say that the things have happened in the manner as projected by the defacto-complainant and none named in the complaint can be charge sheeted for the said offence.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed a protest application before the learned Magistrate on 10.10.2014 vide Crl.M.P.No.236 of 2015 which reads that the investigating officer has not followed the cardinal principles of investigation into of offence contemplated under Cr.P.C. and thereby final closure report for lack of evidence is bad in law and untenable, that law does not given permission to investigating officer to peep into the truthfulness of the statements of witnesses recorded but for of the Court to appreciate during evidence as to the veracity and the conclusions by the investigating officer from the witnesses statements recorded of no such utterances by accused taken place abusing of complainant and thereby the investigating officer exceeded the parameters of law that resulted injustice, that there is no dispute with regard to the Board meeting held on 23.08.2011 and the other witnesses cited by names Jai Prakash(the protest petitioner- complainant), S.Kesava Reddy, Smt. Bhanuka Nrmada, the elected members of the Board were present in the meeting, but the final report is silent about this information in column Nos. 12 and 13 shown as blank which shows the investigating officer not examined any witness. that the S.C.& ST (POA) Act, 1986 is a Special Act and the Government appointed a Senior Officer of the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate and the investigating officer no way shown he was duly appointed under Rule 7 of the Act to investigate by the competent authority, thereby the final report is unauthorized, hence to reject, that the investigating officer to complete investigation on top priority within 30 days but admittedly the case was issued on 26.08.2011 and the final report is 18.05.2012 more than 8 months, that the opinion of the investigating officer about the delay in lodging report on 22.08.2011 for the occurrence dated 22.08.2011 is afterthought is unsolicited and the final report thereby is biased one to help the accused, hence, not to accept the final report by allowing the petition, record statements of all witnesses, take cognizance and issue warrants in the above crime against the accused.

7. Pursuant to which the protest petition on different dates came for consideration by return and representation, as the case may be, and the sworn statement of the complainant in protest petition was recorded by the learned Magistrate on 07.02.2005 besides J.Ramakrishna, a businessman A.Sreenivas of Begumpet, S.Nagaraju of Begampet and Raju of Marredpally saying in one voice as they also attended the Board meeting.

8. It is important to say in the original report registered as Cr.No.154 of 2011 by Sub Inspector of Police, Maredpally, the said Jai Prakash(complainant) mentioned the witnesses present are A.Srinivas, J.Ramakrishna, S.Nagaraju, A.Raju but not named L.Ws. 2 to 5 of the sworn statement recorded by the Magistrate on the protest application. Leave about L.W.1 Jai Prakash sworn statement, in tune to his report J.Ramakrishna who claimed as businessman of Marredpally, stated that on 22.08.2011 at the Board Meeting attended by him the complainant Jai Prakash, questioned the S.Balakrishna-CEO(accused) that the deliberations taken place on 20.07.2011 were not recorded in the minutes of the meeting for which the CEO not given appropriate explanation, for which Jai Prakash raised high voice, for which Balakrishna-C.E.O. stated his job is permanent and Board members can come and go from which the discussion has become serious, meanwhile Balakrishna abused Jai Prakash in filthy language by touching his caste as Nuvvu oka mala lanjakudukku vee, nuvvu naku yanduku yeduru vastunava, nee anthu chustha, mala nakodaka, mala bastard na tho fight chestay neenu board keranevakunda chestha. In fact, he stated that police examined him during investigation however his statement not recorded. Part-II Case Diary final report of the police shows said Ramakrishna was examined as L.W.3 on 30.09.2011 and he stated is resident of Plot No.60, Mahendra Hills, East Maredpally and he stated that the meeting of cantonment Board held on 22.08.2011 and several discussions on several public issues mentioned in the agenda were discussed and while the meeting was going on several heated arguments on some topics between Board Members and CEO took place and when Jai Prakash(complainant) insisted a reply from the CEO about certain irregularities committed by him, all of a sudden between Jai Prakash and C.E.O., heated arguments taken place and said CEO raged and started abusing Jai Prakash(Complainant) castigated him and tried to beat in a bit of anger and screemed Jai Prakash touching his caste name. Here actually words uttered touching caste with an intent to insult if at all not reflected from the Statement. He was examined by police is not even in dispute by J.Ramakrishna before the learned Magistrate and L.W.2 and there is no explanation in the statement before the Magistrate that even he stated the actual words not reflected in the statement of the investigating officer when said Ramakrishna was examined on 07.02.2015, that too, on the protest petition of Jai Prakash who was supplied with final report and endorsed on the report from the Court on 02.03.2013, the said version of Ramakrishna before the investigating officer and not using any actual words of abuse whether to attract the offence supra or not, to decide the development in the protest application examination has to be viewed in that perspective. Even coming to A.Sreenivas, S.Nagaraju and Geethakumari, examined before the Magistrate on the protest petition on 07.03.2015 and his version is like of J.Ramakrishna supra whereas, in his examination before investigating officer as L.W.4 (A.Srinivas), dated 30.09.2011 is stated about half an hour after the meeting, he heard some loud voice from the Board meeting hall on which he went to the Board meeting place and observed the C.E.O. was in anger raised on Jai Prakash as Mala lanjakodaka, nee anthu choosthaa, nenu talchukunte Boardku Ralevu abused in filthy language. Whereas, the sworn statement recorded before the Magistrate on protest application, the words used stated as Mala na kodaka, mala bastard, nuvu mala lanjakodukuvi, nee anthu chusta, leave about some difference in the said version even before the investigating officer but both convey the same thereby it is clear that the investigating officers investigating is not fair as what are the words stated in his examination of witnesses that he recorded but for that if at all investigating officer one sided as contended by the complainant. Like in the statement of Ramakrishna before the investigating officer nothing speaks of any words uttered actually. It could be even from the statement of L.W.4 A.Srinivas also from the police investigation statement.

23. Having regard to the above, from the above expressions referring to the principle laid down as to when sanction is required when not, coming to the facts of the case on hand, when it is a clear case that the accused is discharging official duty as CEO-Principle Secretary of the Board in the respective meetings including it is a duty to attend and record the minutes and while the official meeting was going on including from presence of the complainant and questioning of earlier minutes of meeting not properly drawn and there were exchange of heated words between them and in the course the alleged abuse taken place, it is interconnected with the discharge of official duties with alleged excess thereby sanction is mandatory, without which the proceedings are null and void and unsustainable and are liable to be quashed of the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate without adverting to the requirement or any of the sanction and without application of judicial mind engrafting mechanically cognizance by taken on file to allot PRC Number to commit to the Special Court of Sessions. Apart from the above coming to the facts further on the cognizance taken otherwise sustainable or not concerned, the Apex Court in the expression of 5 judge Bench in Dharampal Vs. State of Maharashtra held that the Magistrate has a role to play while committing a case to the Court of Sessions upon taking cognizance on the police final report submitted u/sec.173 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 190 Cr.P.C. In the event, the Magistrate disagrees, when the police final report, has to choice that is made to act on the basis of a protest petition that may be filed or made, while disagreeing with the police report, to issue process and summoning the accused. From this, it is clear that even police filed final referred report, Magistrate may defer with the opinion of police and can take cognizance and going through the entire material or on even protest application filed by the complainant may proceed to enquire into to take cognizance or thereunder.

24. No doubt, it is not therefrom a mere proceeding like a private complaint case while proceeding against the accused on a protest application even the Magistrate accepted the police referred report while proceeding on the protest application of the accused, leave about the Magistrate by going through the final report even deferred with the police referred report opinion and can take cognizance. Here the Magistrate did not take cognizance by deferring with police final referred report containing more than 22 witnesses examined including the President of Cantonment Board among other officials and non-officials, including Ward Members attended public meeting whether the issue allegedly taken place. Then out of the two options referred in Dharampal supra, one not availed by the Magistrate and the other is to proceed on the protest application. When such is the case, the Magistrate is bound not only simply to accept the facts referred in the protest application and the sworn statement of protest petitioner-cum-any other witnesses but also bound to consider earlier police referred report and also if necessary accept any explanation impugning the investigation including among those witnesses examined by the Investigating officer if explained away as to they did not so state before investigating officer or they were not even examined or of they stated not correctly reflected. Without which, that too, when police filed referred report outcome of earlier crime registered is part of the Court record and it is based on report alone, protest application is filed impugning the referred report from the very protest raises that referred report formed part for consideration to consider the protest against. By then the Magistrate shall have no right at all to totally ignore the earlier investigation final referred report. From that principle when applied to the facts here from the police final referred report there are as many as 22 witnesses examined of whom but for one Kesava Reddy shown sailing with the complainant and from perusal of the material is the main person besides B.Narmada, Mallikarjuna(husband of B.Narmada) and J.Ramakrishna whose wife is Anuradha-Board member, on investigation material clearly shows they all got grievance apart from the others viz; Nagaraju in sailing with the complainant, CEO wants to cancel the Toll Tax, Octroi collection contract that was the issue also in the meeting for which he is not accommodating them that causes loss to them from any extension of the contract they got the grievance. In the protest application there is nothing against the investigating officer personally attributed even to say what is the basis for investigating officer if at all to allegedly acted is unfairly or with any bias. On perusal being a senior officer of the D.S.P. cadre when investigated the case in the absence of showing how the investigating officer is not fair, the Court is bound to accept such investigation before. No doubt by reason, the protest complainant is entitled to point out here there is nothing basis to say investigation by the Senior Police Officer is not fair. Here importantly several of the witnesses like K.Ramachandra and staff reporter(among the media persons) attended, stated there was some sudden arguments between the CEO Balakrishna(accused) and Ward Members Jai Prakash(complainant) and Krishna Reddy and other cited and Krishna Reddy and Jai Prakash raised from their chairs by proceeding towards CEO Balakrishna by abusing him as rowdy and they were stopped by Pratap, Venkata Rao, and Balakrishna Pointed them for their using as rowdy in his saying he is responsible member they have to behave as responsible members and the same was after pacified particularly at the request of the President of the Cantonment Board Major General K.Digvijay Singh and work was resumed and the agenda further meeting went on peacefully and the CEO Balakrishna did not abuse in his presence, the said Jai Prakash and another Press reporters among the media also stated so including the District Revenue Officer, Parasani Shyam Kumar, Member of the 7th ward of the cantonment, Panasa Venkata Rao another Board member, A.Ashok Kumar, journalist among the press on behalf of the TV5 news channel and Ramadugu Venkat another Press Reporter of Andhra Prabha, Nampally Srinivas Press Reporter of Vaartha daily newspaper, J.Pratap, Board Member of the Cantonment, one Yogeshswamy another nominated Member of the cantonment, another Major General Digwijay, President of the Cantonment Member, one Joseph M.G.Celestian so and one Geetha Kumari Office Superintendent supra also stated so when all they in one voice being the independent witnesses stated that there was no any abuse by the C.E.O. Balakrishna of Jai Prakash but for Jai Prakash and Krishna Reddy that abused Balakrisha including addressing meeting as rowdy for which he felt sorry for it and questioned them to behave like responsible member of the cantonment member and he is discharging his official duties, it clearly speaks without any such incident happened on 22.08.2011 as pointed out rightly by the investigating officer after deliberations and consultations with the motive behind to implicate the CEO-Balakrishna as he is not acting to their tunes to benefit them in the Octroi and toll tax contract extension and also in other aspects for the C.E.O. discharging his official duties strictly as per law and procedure being a public servant, to malign him and demeaning him and made him to tend to them if possible a distorted version brought into existence after three days by false implication for the first time in that report and once the investigating officer from the independent witnesses version and also from the versions of the persons noted in the F.I.R. among others members including attended besides the President of the Cantonment Member and several press people mostly in one voice stated any such instances was happened the referred report is right and justified by the conclusions. When such is the case, the learned Magistrate by recording 34 sworn statements of the complainant and the persons to his tunes brought by him, taken cognizance of the case totally ignoring the police referred report supra and none of the even independent witnesses who categorically stated no such incidents as happened, even not examined at least one to say the investigating officer did not record his statement or he did so state or even he stated to the investigating office about any abuse taken place it is not properly reflected even to defer with the investigating officer from the so called protest to take cognizance, thereby the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate simply based on the few versions of the complainant/protest petitioner and his three or four more persons which he cited to his tunes is unsustainable and it is nothing but abuse of process by the complainant to wreak vengeance for which the legal machinery cannot be allowed to use and any such permission is nothing but grave abuse of process and the inherent powers are there to prevent such abuse to subserve the ends of justice.