Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 638 (AP)

M. Raja Maidu v. Paruchuri Venkata Rajyalakshmi

2020-10-01

M.GANGA RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT M Ganga Rao, J. - The petitioner is Accused No.2 in Crime No.250 of 2018 dated 15.11.2018 on the file of the Tiruchanoor Police Station, Tirupati, Chittoor District, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 452, 471, 473, 120-B, 324 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the petitioner and four others. The police, after investigation, filed charge sheet on 05.09.2019 before the V Additional Munsif Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, which is numbered as C.C.No.103 of 2019. The present criminal petition is filed to quash the C.C.No.303 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional Munsif Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. 2. The 1st respondent-de facto complainant filed a complaint stating that she is the resident of Door No. 19-14-11, Raghavendra Nagar, Tirupati and grandmother of victim child by name N.Jai Narayan Sai, aged about 4 years on the date of the complaint. When the said Jai Narayana Sai was residing along with his father's family in the house bearing Door No.19-14-11, Raghavendra Nagar, Tirupati, her daughter-in-law by name Smt. Maheswari Ramineni (A.1) along with A.2 to A.5 visited the house of the de facto complainant (LW1) on 15.11.2018 evening at about 4.40 p.m., kidnapped her grandson forcibly from her house. It is further alleged that the accused caused injuries to the de facto complainant and other witnesses and took away the child forcibly in the ETIOS Car bearing registration No.MH10- AA-1032 towards Chennai. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet. 3. The charge sheet reveals that A.1 engaged A.3 and brought him to her parents' house in Chittoor, where she provided shelter to A.3 and they hatched a plan to kidnap the victim child with A.2 to A.5. An agreement was made to pay Rs.1 lakh to A.3. An amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid to A.3 by A.2 in token of advance. A.1 sent her father and mother to the High Court at Hyderabad to ensure that the case will be withdrawn on 15.11.2018 and to further mislead the husband of A.1 (LW4). LW4 who went to attend the hearing at High Court also saw the parents of A.1 at High Court, not knowing that they are going to withdraw the case until in the day on 15.11.2018 and hoping that the child was safe in the custody of his grandmother (LW1). LW4 who went to attend the hearing at High Court also saw the parents of A.1 at High Court, not knowing that they are going to withdraw the case until in the day on 15.11.2018 and hoping that the child was safe in the custody of his grandmother (LW1). However, with knowledge that LW4 was away in Hyderabad, A.1 came to Tirupati along with the unidentified driver in an ETIOS car and met A.2 and A.3 at Lakshmipuram Circle in Tirupati on 15.11.2018. During the course of investigation, it has been confirmed that the registration No.MH10-AA-1032 fitted on the ETIOS car is a counterfeit plate and the original registration plate on the car was changed with the counterfeit plate. Then, with the ETIOS car with registration No.MH10-AA-1032 at about 4.40 p.m. on 15.11.2018, A.1 to A.4 were went to the house of de facto complainant with confirmed information from parents of A.1 that the father of victim child (LW4) was at the High Court. As per their plan, the car was parked on the unpaved footpath on the eastern side of the house of LW1 and at first, A.2 and A.3 talked with servant maid Jareena (LW2) on the pretext that they are looking for a house on a rental basis and in the meanwhile, A.1 Maheswari forcefully entered into the house towards the child in the living room and the other two accused males also forced their way into the house. The accused created fear by way of threats and attempted to take away the child Jai Narayana Sai, aged about 4 years who was playing in the hall of house of de facto complainant. LW1 and LW2 tried to prevent the same and LW2 was restrained by one male accused and A.1 assaulted LW1 causing bruise under the right eye and another male accused swinged his fist with metal at LW1's head causing bleeding injury on the right forehead of LW1 while she tried to escape his assault and lost balance and fell down. Thereupon, A.1 took the child and handed over to an unknown male accused, who in turn took the child out of the house and the gate of compound wall, and all of them along with victim child got into silver colour ETIOS car bearing Registration No.MH10-AA-1032 which was parked on the foot path of the eastern side of the house. Thereupon, A.1 took the child and handed over to an unknown male accused, who in turn took the child out of the house and the gate of compound wall, and all of them along with victim child got into silver colour ETIOS car bearing Registration No.MH10-AA-1032 which was parked on the foot path of the eastern side of the house. Then, the car went towards Chennai highway and met with an accident within 50 meters from the residence of the de facto complainant, resulting which the car was damaged. Then, the accused proceeded to Chennai en route to Puttur, where A.1 to A.3 got into the Fortuner car (number not known) brought by A.5, by leaving the ETIOS car and its driver and reached Chennai International Airport. A.1 had booked two sets of flight tickets for herself, the child and A.2 from Chennai to New Delhi. One set of tickets was on Indigo flight that would depart by 10.40 p.m. on 15.11.2018 which she did not take. Instead, A.1 flew to New Delhi from Chennai by AIR India flight No.943 (PNR No.HEZRJ) at 9.15 p.m. along with the victim child and A.2. Upon landing in Delhi, she tried to board a Qatar Airways flight to U.S.A. in the early hours of 16.11.2018, but was prevented from doing so because the PIO/OCI card of the child was in the custody of Family Court-cum-V Additional District Court, Tirupati and the same was needed to fly the child out of India, but she did not have the same. Then, a Nationwide Lookout Circular dated 16.11.2018 was originated by the Superintendent of Police, Tirupati Urban Police District for rescue of the victim child and to arrest A.1 and the same was opened by C.B.I. on the same day. However, A.1 fled away with the victim child from Delhi to Kathmandu, Nepal by road. It further reveals that on 19.11.2018, she went to Kunming, China by flight No.MU758 i.e., China Eastern Airlines with Ticket Nos. 9997225638105 and 9997225638100 from Kathmandu, Nepal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A.2 submits that there is no reference of the petitioner's name either in the complaint or in the charge sheet with regard to his participation and that no overt acts are attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner/A.2 is implicated in the crime only because he is the paternal uncle of A.1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A.2 submits that there is no reference of the petitioner's name either in the complaint or in the charge sheet with regard to his participation and that no overt acts are attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner/A.2 is implicated in the crime only because he is the paternal uncle of A.1. Registration of crime against the petitioner/A.2 is only to harass and took vengeance against him, which is an abuse of process of Court. The petitioner/A.2 is a resident of Chittoor, whereas the alleged offence took place at Tirupati and no specific allegation is leveled against him in the charge sheet, which is lodged after through investigation. Hence, prays to quash the C.C.No.303 of 2019 on the file of V Additional Munsif Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati against the petitioner/A.2. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of 2nd respondent-State submits that several serious offences were committed by petitioner/A.2 to conspire, hire henchmen and abet violent and highhanded removal of the minor child out of India in violation of undertaken given by A.1 in Habeas Corpus W.P.No.30694 of 2018. The involvement of petitioner/A.2 is already been made out in the charge sheet and prays to dismiss the quash petition. 6. Sri Chetluru Sreenivas, learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent-father of minor child, submits that the petitioner/A.2 is a key conspirator and has a major role in the offences committed as mentioned in the charge sheet and corroborated by his phone call data. The CCTV footage of Chennai Airport, IGI Airport New Delhi shows the petitioner/A.2 along with A.1 and victim child. The petitioner/A.2 and other accused are trying to influence the authorities to dilute the proceedings in the present case by not including several other conspirators and offenders, who are also friends and relatives of A.1 and A.2, by not submitting several material evidences to the Court along with charge sheet, for which the 1st respondent made several representations to the police officials and also filed petitions before the Court. The petitioner/A.2 along with his family and henchmen are threatening and intimidating the family of de facto complainant to withdraw the complaint. The present petition is filed with false averments and misrepresentations to evade from the proceedings, and prays to dismiss the petition. 7. The petitioner/A.2 along with his family and henchmen are threatening and intimidating the family of de facto complainant to withdraw the complaint. The present petition is filed with false averments and misrepresentations to evade from the proceedings, and prays to dismiss the petition. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the learned counsel, and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the petitioner/A.2 was actively participated in the commission of crime. The witnesses are also spoken about the participation of petitioner/A.2 in the offence. The charge sheet also discloses the participation of petitioner/A.2 in clear terms and thereby it could not be said that registration of crime against the petitioner/A.2 is illegal and prosecution against him amounts to an abuse of process of Court. 8. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of decisions held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. That power should be exercised to quash to proceedings where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings; where the allegations in the FIR or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; and where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 9. In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. 9. In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, (1992) AIR SC 604 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held thus: "In the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (a) 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 any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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 '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 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; (e) 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; (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (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 the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (g) 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." 10. In the present case on hand, after investigation, the charge sheet is filed and the cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate concerned. The charge sheet discloses active participation of petitioner/A.2 for the offences of which the crime is registered. Having regard to the allegations made in the FIR, charge sheet and the background of the case during investigation, a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner/A.2 along with other accused and it is for the respondent-State to prove the allegations during trial against the accused and at this stage, this Court cannot go into the details of the veracities of the statements given by the witnesses or to conduct detailed enquiry into the statements made by the witnesses to arrive at a conclusion that there is no basis to register a crime against the petitioner/A.2. Further, this Court do not want to go in detail into the charges leveled against the accused to give a finding in this petition, as it would affect the interest of the petitioner/A.2 during trial. 11. Suffice it to say that this Court is of the considered view that the allegations made in the charge sheet after investigation are sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the petititioner/A.2 for filing the charge sheet and whether those allegations are sufficient to sustain the conviction or acquittal can be decided by the trial Court after full-fledged trial. Further, on a careful consideration of the case record available, this Court came to the conclusion that none of the guidelines laid down in the Bhajan Lal's case (1 supra) satisfied to quash the C.C.No.303 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati, having due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As sequel to it, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.