THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 333 of 2014 Date: 22.01.2014 BETWEEN :
B. Ramchander Rao and another .. Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, through Station House Officer, Malkajgiri Police Station, Cyberabad, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents This court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.333 of 2014 ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.11 of 2014 of Malkajgiri Police Station, Cyberabad, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of investigation in the above crime, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 324 IPC.
The allegations in the report would disclose that the informant herein is a Manager, Engineering-Chanakyapuri Section, HMWSSB, Hyderabad. On 03.01.2014, the informant deployed G.B.Contractor to disconnect water supply of defaulted consumer namely Smt.
B.Shyamala residing in H.No.13-1/42/1, Veenapani Nagar, Malkajgiri, bearing CAN No. 616722395. The report further discloses that the said B.Shyamala was due Rs.37,019-52 ps. to the water works department. On 03.01.2014 the G.B.Contractor (General Branch Contractor) namely Hemanth Kumar proceeded to the above mentioned house to disconnect the water connection as the consumer failed to settle her arrears. While performing his duty, the petitioners, who are husband and son of the consumer opposed the activity, beat the said person and caused severe bleeding injuries. It is specifically mentioned in the report that the said Hemanth Kumar, who is a G.B.Contractor is a part and parcel of HMWSSB and its activities. Basing on these allegations, the above case came to be registered on 03.01.2014.
Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submits that even accepting the allegations in the report to be true, no offence is made out under Sections 353 and 324 IPC. According to him no wound certificate is produced to show that the said Hemanth Kumar had sustained injuries and that he is not a government servant falling within the meaning of public servant as mentioned in Section 353 IPC.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application.
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. envisages three circumstances under which inherent jurisdiction can be exercised viz. (1) to give effect to an order under the Code; (2) to prevent abuse of process of Court; and (3) to otherwise secure ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule, which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In order to quash a First Information Report under this Section, the High Court has to see whether prima facie case against the accused is made out or not. When the allegations in the Report make out a prima facie cognizable offence, it is the duty of police to conduct investigation. The said power cannot be invoked to interdict a legitimate prosecution and it has to be exercised very sparingly to render real and substantial justice to the parties. As held by the Apex Court, it is to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection in rare cases to prevent abuse of process of Court or to otherwise secure ends of justice.
A perusal of the material on record clearly indicate that on 03.01.2014 one Hemanth Kumar, who is a G.B.Contractor and part of HMWSSB and its activities, proceeded to the house of the petitioners pursuant to the instructions given by the authorities to disconnect the water supply to the said house as the consumer fell due a sum of Rs.37,019-52 ps. While discharging his duties, the petitioners are alleged to have beat the said Hemanth Kumar and causing severe internal injuries. The above crime was registered on 03.01.2014. The question of producing the wound certificate could arise only after completion of investigation. At this stage it cannot be said that no incident took place and that the said Hemanth Kumar did not receive any injuries in the hands of the petitioners. The truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the report needs to be investigated by the police.
The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the injured Hemanth Kumar is not a government servant and as such the ingredients constituting the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC are not made out against the petitioners.
As seen from the report given by Manager, Engineering- Chanakyapuri Section, HMWSSB, the injured Hemanth Kumar was a G.B.Contractor and was part and parcel of HMWSSB and its activities. The question as to whether the said Hemanth Kumar is a government servant or not and whether any remuneration was paid to him by the water works department are matters to be investigated by the police. At this stage, it cannot be said that F.I.R. is bereft of basic facts constituting the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 324 IPC.
I n Padal Venkata Rama Reddy v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana
[1]
Reddy t h e Apex Court held that the criminal complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the alleged offence. As long as the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail. 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.
For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked by this Court to interdict the investigation which is at the threshold.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 22.01.2014 gkv
[1] 2011 (2) ALD 948 (SC)