THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
Crl.P.No.15338/2013
ORDER:
The petitioners who are A-1 to A-4 filed the present criminal petition under section 482 Cr.p.C., seeking quashing of investigation in Cr No.100/2013 of Ipur police station, Guntur District, registered for the offences punishable under sections 353, 506 r/w 34 IPC.
2 The allegations in the report, which was lodged on 12-12-2013 are as under: The informant was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Ipur police station since last two years. One K. Venkatayya was to take charge from the informant for a period of one month on 23-11-2013. On the evening of 11-12-13 there were quarrels between two groups in Boggaram village. On 12-12-2013 at about 11 AM, while the informant was in the police station, some of the residents of Boggaram village, namely, Mandapati Rama Rao, Gopu Suraiah, Mandapati Koteswara Rao and Mandadi Anjaiah came to the police station. They asked one constable Nagaraju about the availability of SI in the police station. Without listening to him, all the accused forcibly entered into the chambers of the informant. When the informant asked them as to why they have come, the accused/petitioners questioned the audacity of the trainee SI towards them. A-1 is alleged to have questioned the audacity of the trainee SI in registering a case against his group. Thereafter, A-2 stated as to how he would go around in the village when a case is registered against his group. A-3 is alleged to have stated that how can a case be registered when his son is the President of the village. A-4 informed that the trainee SI asked them to come to the police station for effecting arrest and directed the informant to call the trainee SI to the station. So saying all of them moved out of the room of the Sub-Inspector. At that stage, Nagaraju, a Police Constable asked them to wait but they went away in their motor cycles. The report also discloses that all the four accused not only prevented the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ipur Police Station in discharging his duties but also behaved in a high handed manner while referring to the conduct of the trainee SI. Basing on these allegations, the above case came to be registered for the offences punishable under sections 353 and 506 r/w 34 IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submits that the allegations in the report are unbelievable as it is highly impossible for the petitioners to enter into the police station and question the action of the trainee Sub-Inspector. According to him, the fourth petitioner herein has lodged a report on 12-12-2013 against the defacto complainant and two others which came to be registered as Cr.No.99/13 of Ipur Police Station for an offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 IPC. As a counter blast to the said case, the present report came to be lodged against the petitioners. He would further submit that due to village politics, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. He would further contend that the delay of 4 days in lodging the present report that too after registration of crime No.99/2013 is fatal to the prosecution.
4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal petition contending that mere registration of a crime against the informant does not make the allegations in the present report false. Since the case is still at the stage of investigation and as the allegations in the report do make out a prima facie case against the petitioners, she submits that the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot be invoked to interdict the investigation at its threshold.
5. The jurisdiction which this Court exercises under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash a complaint, even before completion of investigation, is limited. The law laid down, in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal[1], which has been followed in several other judgments of the Supreme Court, is that interference is permissible in cases (a) where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not, prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) where the allegations in the FIR 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; (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or the 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; (d) 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 there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; and (e) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused, and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. The Supreme Court further held that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection, and that too in the rarest of rare cases; the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint; the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice; and even if a complaint has been laid only on account of personal animosity that, by itself, will not be a ground to discard the complaint containing serious allegations which have to be tested and weighed after the evidence is collected.
6. As held by the Apex Court in DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE V. [2] STATE OF KERALA the power under section 482 Cr.P.C.,. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the Section itself. Section 482 does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power which the court possessed before the enactment of the Code. There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
[3]
7. In CBI V. RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA the Apex Court cautioned that the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution and the High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court.
8. The power to quash criminal complaints should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. The criminal complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the alleged offence. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the criminal complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the alleged offence. (Padal Venkata Rama Reddy v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy (2011) 2 ALD 948 (SC); Rajesh Bajaj v. State (1999) 3 SCC 259); Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd.(2006) 6 SCC 736).
9. Keeping in view the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court, I shall now deal with the case on hand.
10. A perusal of the material placed on record would indicate that on 13- 12-2013 one Mandadi Guruswamy lodged a report against Gopu China Narasaiah and Gopu Hari in respect of an incident which occurred on 11-12- 2013 at about 6 PM for an offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 IPC, which came to be registered as Cr.No.98/2013 of Ipur Police Station. On the same day ie., on 13-12-13 at about 11 AM, A-4 herein lodged a report against the second respondent herein, the trainee SI and Constable Nagaraju in respect of an incident which occurred on 12-12-2013 at 11 AM which came to be registered as Cr.No.99/2013 of Ipur Police Station for an offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 IPC. On 12-12-2013 the present report came to be lodged against the petitioners at the instance of SI of Police, which is registered as Cr.No.100/2013 of Ipur Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 353 and 506 r/w 34 IPC in respect of an incident which is said to have taken place on 12-12-2013 at 11 AM. It is true that prior to the registration of the present crime, the fourth petitioner gave a report in the same police station in which the second respondent was working as Sub- Inspector of Police and a case in Cr.No.99/2013 was registered against the informant herein and two others for an offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 IPC. Crime No.98/2013 was also registered at the instance of Mandadi Guruswamy against Gopu Chinna Narsaiah and Gopu Hari in the same Police Station. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present case came to be registered as a counter blast to the report given by the fourth petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage. If really, the SI of Police had any dishonest intention of foisting a false case against the petitioners, he would have prevented the very registration of Cr.No.99/13 against him (informant), the trainee SI and Nagaraju.
11. Further, the statements of L.Ws.1 to 6 recorded by the police during the course of investigation in Cr.No.100/2013 would disclose the role of the petitioners in the said crime. The gist of their statements would disclose that on 12-12-2013 at 11 AM while the informant was present in Ipur Police Station the villagers of Boggaram came to the Police Station and forcibly entered the room of the second respondent. When asked as to why they have come, the petitioners replied stating that the trainee SI has filed a case against them and how dare he files a case against them. So saying, A-1 shouted and A-2 threatened the informant with dire consequences stating if a case is registered, the informant cannot move in the Mandal. A-3 is alleged to have stated as to how a case can be registered when his son is the President of the village. These acts are spoken too by all the witnesses, namely, L.W.1 the second respondent herein, L.W.2-B. Ramji Naik, Head Constable and L.W.3 to 5 the police constables. L.W.6- Rodda Venkateswarly was working as Priest in Neelambati Ammavari Temple. L.W.6 who was a Priest in the village stated that on 12-12-2013 morning four persons came on their motor cycles, kept their vehicles in front of their house and went to the police station in a high handed manner. He heard heated discussion in the police station and 15 minutes later all of them came out of the police station, took their motor cycles and went away. One Ramji Naik (L.W.2), a Head Constable in the Police Station is said to have registered Cr.No.99/2013. But the very same Head Constable was examined as an eye-witness to the incident which is the subject matter of Cr.No.100/2013. The statements of these witnesses were recorded by Inspector of Police, Vinukonda Rural Circle. The remand case dairy which is produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners would show that out of six witnesses examined by the Inspector, L.Ws. 1 to 5 were shown as eye- witnesses to the incident. Merely because they are Head Constable and Constables working in the Ipur police station, their statements cannot be brushed aside at this stage. As stated above, the above crime came to be registered on 12-12-2013 and the case is still at the initial stage of investigation. The Apex Court in ZANDU PAHARMACEUTICALS LTD V. MD. SHARAFUL HAQUE[4] has categorically held that once a crime is registered mala fide intention cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings.
12. Since the allegations in the report do make out a prima facie case against the accused for the offences alleged, the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot be invoked to interdict the investigation which is at its threshold. For the aforesaid reasons, this court is of the view that there are no merits in the criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed.
C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,J
Dt. 22-01-2014 kmr
[1]
AIR 1992 SC 604
[2] (2008) 3 SCC 542
[3] (2006) 7 SCC 188
[4] AIR 2005 SC 9