Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 796 (TS)

Shaik Azaharuddin v. State Of Telangana

2020-11-18

K.LAKSHMAN

body2020
JUDGMENT K. Lakshman, J. - Crl.P.No.5217 is filed to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.829 of 2019 pending on the file of Station House Officer, Jubilee Hills Police Station. 2. Crl.P.No.2076 of 2020 is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.829 of 2020 pending on the file of Station House Officer, Jubilee Hills Police Station. 3. The petitioner herein is accused No.1 in the said Crime. The offences alleged against the petitioner herein are under Sections 313, 417, 420 & 376(2) of IPC. The petitioner has filed an application for anticipatory bail vide Crl.P.No.2044 of 2020 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2020 directing the petitioner to surrender before the Court below concerned on or before 02.07.2020 and file an application for regular bail, upon which, the Court concerned shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving due notice to the learned Public Prosecutor. The other conditions were also imposed in the said order. The petitioner herein did not comply with the said order and did not surrender before the Court below. There is no change of circumstances in the present case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the de facto complainant has lodged a complaint with the very same allegations against the petitioner herein. The same was withdrawn by her and in support of the same, he has filed copy of SMS wherein it is mentioned that the said complaint was disposed of under compromise. Thereafter, she has lodged the present complaint. He would further submit that brother of the petitioner has filed complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C against the de facto complainant herein for the offences under Sections 384, 420 and 506 IPC and the same is pending before the Magistrate. Though it was filed on 30.01.2020, still it is in SR stage only. There is no explanation by the petitioner on the same. Learned counsel would further submit that there are no specific overt acts against the petitioner herein. The 2nd respondent is having close association with other people and in proof of the same, he has filed the photographs. With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to consider the bail application and also quash the proceedings in Crime No.829 of 2019. 5. The 2nd respondent is having close association with other people and in proof of the same, he has filed the photographs. With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to consider the bail application and also quash the proceedings in Crime No.829 of 2019. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor on instructions would submit that the petitioner has not complied with the earlier order and did not surrender before the Court concerned. He further submits that filing of the present petitions is abuse of process of law. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the present petitions. 6. As stated above, on perusal of the complaint dated 20.12.2019, prima facie would reveal that there are specific overt acts against the petitioner herein. The allegations leveled against the petitioner are that he has promised the de facto complainant to marry and he has exploited her sexually and she got aborted. The offence under Section 313 IPC is there against the petitioner herein. As stated above, this Court vide order dated 13.03.2020 in Crl.P.No.2044 of 2020 directed the petitioner to surrender before the Court below concerned and move an application for regular bail. There is no explanation, much less plausible explanation by the petitioner for non-compliance of the said order. As stated above, there is no change of circumstances from the order dated 13.03.2020 till today. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamal shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors, (2019) AIR SC 847 categorically held that in criminal proceedings the correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceedings shall not be interdicted. As discussed supra, there are specific overt acts against the petitioner herein and the allegations would show that the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner are there. 7. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceedings shall not be interdicted. As discussed supra, there are specific overt acts against the petitioner herein and the allegations would show that the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner are there. 7. Considering the said aspects, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein in Crime No.829 of 2019 and also to quash the proceedings in the said Crime. 8. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.