HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition Nos.15258 and 15578 of 2013 and 401 of 2014 Date: 18-7-2014 Between S.Sadanandam and 4 others … Petitioners/ Accused 1 to 5 and State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent Reddy Sangaiah … Respondent/
De facto Complainant
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition Nos.15258 and 15578 of 2013 and 401 of 2014 Common Order:
These three petitions are disposed of through this common order. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.15578 of 2013 are accused 1 and 2, whereas the petitioners in Crl.P.No.15258 of 2013 are accused 3 and 4 in P.R.C.No.15 of 2013 on the file of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Red Hills, Hyderabad. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.401 of 2014 is accused No.5 in the same case. Thus, these petitions are filed by accused 1 to 5 for quashment of the case against them.
2. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. There were disputes between accused 3 and 4 on the one side and the 2nd respondent on the other side. A notice under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (HMC Act, for short) was issued to the 2nd respondent for the demolition of his house.
The 2nd respondent, however, filed Writ Petition No.9424 of 2008 questioning the notice under Section 636 of the HMC Act. Orders were passed directing the 2nd respondent to furnish his title documents and other documents such as approved plan to the Municipal authorities. The Court further directed that in the event the 2nd respondent herein failed to comply with the directions given through orders in W.P.No.9424 of 2008, the notice under Section 636 of the HMC Act would hold good.
3. The 2nd respondent filed another writ petition in W.P.No.25387 of 2008. This Court disposed of the same directing the Municipal authorities to consider the documents submitted by the 2nd respondent herein and pass a reasoned order afresh in terms of the orders of the Court in W.P.No.9424 of 2008. The 3rd accused filed a contempt case in C.C.No.1337 of 2008 in W.P.No.9424 of 2008 claiming that the order of the Court was not complied with. She also filed a separate writ petition in W.P.No.8900 of 2010. The writ petition was closed recording the representation of the learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC, for short) that the Corporation intended to lay road at the earliest.
4. It is now contended by the 2nd respondent that accused 3 and 4 connived with the officials of GHMC.
A complaint was lodged on 17-5-2010. The First Information Report (FIR) was issued on 31-7-2010 by the Musheerabad Police under Section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the SCs/STs Act, for short).
After due investigation, Police referred the complaint as false through final order dated 22-10-2011.
The 2nd respondent filed protest petition on 19-3-2012.
5. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners/accused 1 to 5 contended that accused 1, 2 and 5 are GHMC officials and the allegations against them are regarding their official acts. It is his contention that the 2nd respondent constructed structures in open space meant for road. Stopping the 2nd respondent from making the constructions is not a violation under any enactment, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that Section 197 Cr.P.C bars the action against the petitioners without prior sanction. Incidentally, he pointed out that the 2nd respondent has also filed a civil suit seeking damages against the accused. It would appear that no allegations are made against accused 1, 2 and 5 that they exceeded the powers vested under the provisions of the HMC Act. He further submitted that demolition of the structures raised by the 2nd respondent was on the basis of positive directions issued by the High Court in the writ petitions.
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that in the notice dated 06-8-2009 issued to the 2nd respondent, reference No.17 is the opinion of the Standing Counsel. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the accused that accused No.1 had no alternative but to issue the notice in the teeth of contempt proceedings.
6. It is the primary contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that so far as accused 1, 2 and 5 are concerned, they are GHMC employees, so much so, a criminal complaint without sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C is not maintainable against them.
He further contended that so far as accused 3 and 4 are concerned, directions were issued in the contempt petition in C.C.No.1337 of 2008 to GHMC to comply with the orders. Be it noted, however, that the question is whether the offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the SCs/STs Act was committed by the petitioners or otherwise.
7. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the 2nd respondent already filed a civil suit claiming damages at Rs.25 lakhs and that criminal proceedings simultaneously certainly are not barred. He submitted that prima facie case was made out against the accused and that Police however referred the FIR through the final report. He submitted that it would be appropriate to permit the prosecution to proceed with the case directing the accused to seek for discharge if they so choose and that this is not a case fit for quashment.
8. I am afraid that where accused 1, 2 and 5 are GHMC employees, for the alleged misconduct or criminal activity by them, prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C is needed before launching the prosecution. The PRC, therefore, is liable to be quashed as against accused 1, 2 and 5 in view of the bar under Section 197 Cr.P.C. So far as accused 3 and 4 are concerned, they are private parties. However, prima facie case is not made out against them from the complaint or from the protest petition. Consequently, prosecution of accused 1 to 5 through P.R.C.No.15 of 2013 is impermissible.
9. Accordingly, these three criminal petitions are allowed. P.R.C.No.15 of 2013 on the file of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Red Hills, Hyderabad is quashed so far as the petitioners/accused 1 to 5 are concerned. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these petitions shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.
18th July, 2014. Ak HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition Nos.15258 and 15578 of 2013 and 401 of 2014 (Common Order) 18th July, 2014.
(Ak)