Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 746 (TS)

S. Sreenivasa Rao v. State Of Telangana

2020-10-21

K.LAKSHMAN

body2020
JUDGMENT K Lakshman, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.358 of 2018, pending on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. The petitioner herein is sole accused in the said C.C. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC. 2. Heard Mr. A. Satya Prasad, learned senior counsel representing Mr. Ravichandra Bejjaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 - de facto complainant. 3. The allegations against the petitioner herein are that he has joined in the Security Printing Press, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, as System Supporter in Computer Section on Outsourcing. The Outsourcing agreement was for a period of 85 days initially and the same has to be renewed from time to time basing on the performance of the petitioner. His outsourcing agreement was not renewed from June, 2017. 4. Respondent No.2 was Deputy Manager (IT) in Security Printing Press, Hyderabad as on the date of complaint dated 06.10.2017. According to the petitioner herein, respondent No.2 is responsible for not renewing his outsourcing contract. With the said grudge against her, the petitioner herein started harassing her by passing vulgar comments and spreading bad rumors. Respondent No.2 has submitted several complaints and representations to the Superior Officers against the petitioner herein. He has also started rumors that she fell in love with him and she is calling him to her house etc. 5. It is further alleged against the petitioner herein that the Superior Officers of the Security Printing Press, Hyderabad has inquired into the matter between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and removed the petitioner from service. Since then, he became psycho and further aggravated the harassment on respondent No.2 by all means and also by following and threatening her. He has also threatened her that if she lodges any complaint to the police against him, he would see her end. The said acts of the petitioner caused mental agony to respondent No.2 and she was unable to concentrate on her official work. He has also threatened her that if she lodges any complaint to the police against him, he would see her end. The said acts of the petitioner caused mental agony to respondent No.2 and she was unable to concentrate on her official work. Therefore, she has lodged a complaint on 06.10.2017 with Saifabad Police Station, who in turn, registered a case in Crime No.431 of 2017 under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC against the petitioner. 6. On completion of investigation, the police have filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.358 of 2018 pending on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. 7. A perusal of the charge sheet would reveal that during the course of investigation, the police have examined respondent No.2 as LW.1, Office Assistant of Security Printing Press as LW.2, Supervisor of I.T. Section of the Printing Press as LW.3, Network Engineer (HCL) as LW.4, System Supporter (IT Section) as LW.5, Networking Engineer as LW.6. LWs.8 and 9 are panch witnesses for confessional statements. 8. In the charge sheet, it is further mentioned that investigation conducted by the police would reveal that the petitioner - accused has committed the offences under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC 9. Mr. A. Satya Prasad, learned senior counsel would submit that the contents of the charge sheet lacks the ingredients of the offences leveled against the petitioner herein. There were disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.2 with regard to the Outsourcing Agreement and its renewal. The petitioner has also sought certain information under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) against respondent No.2 including her illegal claim of HRA. She bore grudge against the petitioner herein and implicated him in the present case. In proof of the same, the petitioner has filed the correspondence / information obtained by him under the RTI Act. The learned senior counsel has also relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments. 10. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature. There are specific allegations against the petitioner in the complaint dated 06.10.2017 and that since July, 2017, the petitioner filed several complaints and representations before the Authorities seeking personal information of respondent No.2 under RTI Act. 10. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature. There are specific allegations against the petitioner in the complaint dated 06.10.2017 and that since July, 2017, the petitioner filed several complaints and representations before the Authorities seeking personal information of respondent No.2 under RTI Act. He has made complaints to the Superior Officers of respondent No.2 stating that she is not doing any work and chitchatting with colleagues etc. The Superiors of respondent No.2 have refused to furnish the said personal information of respondent No.2. Therefore, the petitioner bore grudge against her, continuously harassed her by passing comments stating that she is in love with him and she is calling him to her house etc. Therefore, she gave a complaint with her Superior Officers, who after conducting the inquiry, removed the petitioner from the job. Thereafter, the petitioner became psycho and further aggravated the said harassment on her by all means including following and threatening her. It is also alleged that the petitioner has threatened respondent No.2 that if she lodges any complaint against him with the police, he would see her end. The said harassment caused mental agony to her and her family members and also her reputation got damaged. With the said allegations, respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint on 06.10.2017 with the police to initiate action against the petitioner herein. By referring to the same, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the police have recorded the statement of respondent No.2 as LW.1 and also statements of LWs.2 to 6. The investigation conducted by the police would reveal that the petitioner herein has committed the offences under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC. There are several factual aspects to be tried by the trial Court. Therefore, with the said submissions, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the present petition. 11. In view of the above said rival submissions, it is apt to refer to Section 354 of IPC. There are several factual aspects to be tried by the trial Court. Therefore, with the said submissions, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the present petition. 11. In view of the above said rival submissions, it is apt to refer to Section 354 of IPC. Section 354 of IPC deals with 'assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty', and 'Criminal Force' is defined under Section 350 of IPC, and as per which, whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other. Section 351 of IPC deals with 'assault', and as per which, whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault. 12. In view of the above said definitions, coming to the case on hand, in the complaint dated 06.10.2017, respondent No.2 has specifically alleged that the petitioner herein has started harassing her by passing comments stating that she fell in love with him and she is calling him to her house etc. The petitioner has followed her wherever she goes and harassing her in all means. It is also specifically alleged in the complaint dated 06.10.2017 that after his removal from job, the petitioner became psycho and further aggravated the harassment on her by following and threatening her. Thus, there are several factual aspects which are to be tried during trial by the trial Court. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and also this Court time and again held that power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised very sparingly in rarest of rear cases under extraordinary circumstances. It was further held that this Court has to examine case to case basis. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and also this Court time and again held that power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised very sparingly in rarest of rear cases under extraordinary circumstances. It was further held that this Court has to examine case to case basis. In the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. only prima facie case has to be seen in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab,1960 AIR SC 868. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp1 SCC 335 gave certain exceptions for exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In view of the above stated facts and that there are several factual matrix which involved are to be tried during the course of trial, the case on hand is not falling in any of the exceptions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp1 SCC 335 . The Hon"ble Apex Court in R.P. Kapur,1960 AIR SC 868 laid down the following guidelines. (i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice; (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 15. In R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 3 ALT(Cri) 387 (A.P.) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised with care. In the exercise of its jurisdiction, High Court can examine whether a matter which is essentially of a civil nature has been given a cloak of a criminal offence. Where the ingredients required to constitute a criminal offence are not made out from a bare reading of the complaint, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will constitute an abuse of the process of the court. 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sau. Where the ingredients required to constitute a criminal offence are not made out from a bare reading of the complaint, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will constitute an abuse of the process of the court. 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) AIR SC 847 has categorically held that quashing criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court to quash same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for High Court to interfere. The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at threshold. At that stage, only question relevant was whether averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that were alleged against Respondents. Correctness or otherwise of said allegations had to be decided only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted. 17. In view of the above said authoritative principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, coming to the case on hand, as discussed supra, there are several factual aspects which are to be decided during trial by the trial Court. On perusal of the charge sheet, it prima facie discloses the offences alleged against the petitioner. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations has to be decided only during trial. On perusal of the charge sheet, it prima facie discloses the offences alleged against the petitioner. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations has to be decided only during trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted. 18. As stated above, the contents of the charge sheet lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner and that respondent No.2 has implicated the petitioner due to personal grudge as the petitioner has sought information under RTI Act with regard to personal information of respondent No.2 including her claiming HRA etc. are all the matters to be decided during trial by the trial Court. At the cost of repetition, there are specific allegations leveled against the petitioner herein in the complaint dated 06.10.2017 that the petitioner has passed vulgar comments against respondent No.2 and he has harassed her by following and threatening her to kill etc. Admittedly, she is Deputy Manager in IT Section, whereas the petitioner was engaged as System Supporter on outsourcing for a particular period and thereafter he was removed from the job. In view of the above said contentions and also the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, there is no ground or reason to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.358 of 2018 by this Court invoking inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as the petitioner has failed to make out any case. 19. Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is dismissed. 20. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.