Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 197 (AP)

Alla Rama Krishna Reddy v. State Of AP

2021-03-24

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2021
ORDER : In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner/A1 seeks to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.581/2017 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. 2. On the report given by the Special Deputy Collector & LAO, APCRDA, Unit-9, Penumaka, the police of Tadepalli Police Station registered Cr.No.250/2017 against the petitioner-A1 and others for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 353, 506 & 427 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act, 1984 (for short ‘PDPP Act’). The accusations in the report given by the complainant are that pursuant to the bifurcation of the combined State of Andhra Pradesh into Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh State Government decided to establish a new capital for Andhra Pradesh on the south bank of Krishna river. For construction of State capital, thousands of acres of land was needed. The State Government has established a Capital Regional Development Authority (CRDA) for acquisition of land. The CRDA authorities have acquired the land and constructing new capital building, and for construction of capital city preliminary notification was issued under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the RFCTLAR Act’) for acquisition of Acs. 660.8546 cents in Penumaka Village of Tadepalli Mandal. As per the orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.Nos.14516, 14518, 14525 & 14526 of 2017 directing the authorities to afford complete opportunity to the petitioners to submit their objections on acquisition, the authorities made arrangements and on 11.04.2017 notices were issued to the owners. The date for hearing objections was communicated as 27.06.2017. (a) As per the said schedule, meeting was started at 11.00 A.M. on 27.06.2017 in the premises of H.E. School, Penumaka. Large number of ryots gathered for the meeting. One Sri P.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate, who attended the meeting, has raised certain objections which were patiently heard. So also, an opportunity was given to each and every ryot to raise his specific objections and to submit supporting evidence in writing if any. However, at about 12.30 A1, who is the MLA, Mangalagiri, intervened and forced the complainant and other staff to record minutes of the meeting and arguments on 11(1) objections as per his dictate and whims so as to give an impression that the meeting was not conducted properly. However, at about 12.30 A1, who is the MLA, Mangalagiri, intervened and forced the complainant and other staff to record minutes of the meeting and arguments on 11(1) objections as per his dictate and whims so as to give an impression that the meeting was not conducted properly. The complainant expressed his intention to hear the objections and answered that report would be submitted to the District Collector and decision under Section 15(2) will be communicated to the objectors and would also be published on the website. In spite of the same, A1 highhandedly went on to the dais and again forced the complainant to record the minutes and arguments. The complainant denied and explained him that proceedings would be recorded as per the procedure after completion of the hearing and informed that objectors were at liberty to file written arguments and the entire proceedings were being videographed. On hearing the same, A1 became furious and thrown the tables from the dais and the other accused pulled down the shamiyana and caused security hazard to the complainant and other public. By their acts the accused have obstructed public servants from discharging their statutory duties in hearing the objections under Section 15(2) of the RFCTLAR Act. Hence the FIR. (b) The police investigated the crime and laid charge sheet. Cognizance was taken by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 353, 506 & 427 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act, 1984 against the petitioner-A1 and ten other accused. Hence the Criminal Petition. 3. Heard Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent-State. 4. Denying the charge sheet allegations as totally false and motivated due to political considerations, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner has not committed any offence and even if the charge sheet allegations are taken to be true, they do not reveal any cognizable offence against the petitionerA1 and others. 5. In expatiation, learned counsel firstly argued that even if the FIR, 161 Cr.P.C. statements and charge sheet are accepted on their face value, still none of the offences which are taken cognizance is legally sustainable. He would argue that Section 341 IPC leads to the punishment for wrongful restraint. 5. In expatiation, learned counsel firstly argued that even if the FIR, 161 Cr.P.C. statements and charge sheet are accepted on their face value, still none of the offences which are taken cognizance is legally sustainable. He would argue that Section 341 IPC leads to the punishment for wrongful restraint. As per Section 339 IPC, wrongful restraint means voluntarily obstructing any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed. However, the allegations in the FIR, charge sheet and 161 Cr.P.C. statements are only to the effect that the petitnioer-A1 and other accused insisted the complainant and other officials to record the minutes of the meeting and except that there was no allegation that they have wrongfully restrained the complainant and other officials. Secondly, he argued that the offence under Section 353 IPC is also not attracted because in order to hold a person guilty of the offence under Section 353 IPC, either use of assault or criminal force by the accused against the public servant has to be established. In this case, learned counsel argued, the user of criminal force was not at all alleged. Thirdly, he argued that the offence under Section 506 IPC is also not made out as there are no allegations attracting ingredients of Section 506 IPC i.e., threat to cause death or grievous hurt or to cause destruction of property etc. Learned counsel argued that except alleging that tables were thrown away from the dais, there are no other offensive actions attracting gestures or use of criminal force was alleged. He would thus submit that ordering the criminal case for trial would amount to abuse of process of law and hence, the petition may be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that when the totality of the circumstances and the acts of the accused are taken into consideration, they leave no slightest doubt that the offences alleged against the accused are well found. He would argue that when the complainant and other officials were peacefully conducting the enquiry by hearing the objections of ryots, the petitioner and other accused went there and highhandedly dictated the 2nd respondent to record the objections. He would argue that when the complainant and other officials were peacefully conducting the enquiry by hearing the objections of ryots, the petitioner and other accused went there and highhandedly dictated the 2nd respondent to record the objections. When the complainant refused to budge to their threats, they went on to the dais and thrown chairs and caused damage to the public property and intimidated the complainant and others. The trial Court rightly took cognizance for the offences mentioned in the FIR. He would argue that since there is a strong prima facie material, criminal case cannot be quashed. On the other hand, the petitioner-A1 shall appear before the trial Court and vindicate his stand by placing cogent material and evidence. He thus prayed to dismiss the criminal petition. 7. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the criminal petition to allow? 8. POINT: It should be noted that in the decision reported in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 , the Apex Court has laid down the following guidelines as to when the High Court can exercise its plenary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the Court. They are: “1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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. 5. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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.” Thus, the above jurisprudence guides us that the High Courts can exercise their plenary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings, when the allegations in the FIR or the complaint even if accepted to be true on their face value, still do not disclose any cognizable offence justifying proceeding further in the subject matter. Therefore, it has now to be seen, whether the FIR, 161 Cr.P.C. statements and charge sheet placed on record by the prosecution in this case prima facie emboss the commission of offences as alleged, if un-rebutted. 9. I gave my anxious consideration to the material on record. The report was given by the Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, APCRDA. His version is that as per the directions in Writ Petition Nos.14516, 14518, 14525 and 14526 of 2017, the Acquisition Officers proceeded to conduct a meeting on 27.06.2017 at 11.00 a.m. in the premises of H.E. School, Penumaka village to hear the objections of the ryots regarding the acquisition of lands. His version is that as per the directions in Writ Petition Nos.14516, 14518, 14525 and 14526 of 2017, the Acquisition Officers proceeded to conduct a meeting on 27.06.2017 at 11.00 a.m. in the premises of H.E. School, Penumaka village to hear the objections of the ryots regarding the acquisition of lands. His further version is that at about 12.30 p.m., A.1 and other accused went there and intervened in the meeting and forced the complainant to record the minutes of the meeting and the arguments on Section 11(1) objections to his dictate and whims so as to give an impression that the meeting was not conducted properly. The complainant then replied that he would hear the objections and submit a report to the District Collector and thereafter, the decision under Section 15(2) would be communicated to the objectors and would also be published on the website. In spite of his reply, it is alleged, A.1, who is the MLA, Mangalagiri, high-handedly went on to the dais and forced the complainant and other officials to record the minutes and arguments in writing, for which the complainant denied and explained him that the proceedings would be recorded as per the procedure after completion of the hearing and informed that the objectors were at liberty to file written arguments and further the entire proceedings were being videographed. On hearing the reply of the complainant, the petitioner/A1 became angry and thrown away the tables from the dais and his supports i.e., the other accused pulled down the shamiyana causing security hazard to the complainant, other officials and public. In that manner, it is alleged, all the accused obstructed the public servants from discharging their statutory duty of hearing objections of the ryots and other owners under Section 15(2) of the RFCTLAR Act. In 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses, the narration is more or less in similar manner as stated supra. Thus, the police, after investigation, laid charge sheet and the trial Court has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341, 353, 506, 427 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 of the PDPP Act. 10. As can be seen, the offences under Sections 341 and 353 IPC are cognizable offences, whereas the offences under Sections 427 and 506 IPC are non-cognizable offences. 10. As can be seen, the offences under Sections 341 and 353 IPC are cognizable offences, whereas the offences under Sections 427 and 506 IPC are non-cognizable offences. As per Section 155 (4) Cr.P.C., among the several offences alleged, if one of them discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the entire case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable offences. In such a case, the concerned Police Officer can investigate all the offences and lay a final report. 11. Now, the crucial question is, whether the record prima facie establishes the commission of the offences alleged, even if the prosecution case is un-rebutted. The first argument is that the ingredients of Section 341 IPC are not attracted to the facts emanated from the records. Section 341 IPC is the punishment section which says that whoever wrongfully restrains any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. The term ‘wrongful restraint’ has been explained in Section 339 IPC. It reads thus: “Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.” Thus, to attract the offence of wrongful restraint, i. the offender should voluntarily obstruct any person ii. prevent that person from proceeding in any direction iii. the person, who is proceeding in that direction, has a right to proceed. 12. In this case, when the allegations are taken into consideration, when the complainant and other officials refused to record the objections in the manner the accused wanted, all the accused went on to the dais, thrown away the tables and chairs and pulled down the shamiyana. If these facts are accepted to be true, they would result in voluntarily obstructing the officers and the ryots from moving on to the dais and to the floor. During the course of hearing objections, the officers may require the ryots and other owners to come on to the dais and present their objections. Similarly, some of the officers may have to go down the dais to interact with the ryots sitting under the shamiyana. During the course of hearing objections, the officers may require the ryots and other owners to come on to the dais and present their objections. Similarly, some of the officers may have to go down the dais to interact with the ryots sitting under the shamiyana. By way of forcible pulling down of the shamiyana, tables and chairs, the movement of the officers and the public on to the dais and to the floor was restricted. In that view, it can be said that prima facie the offence under Section 341 IPC is attracted. The petitioner cited the following decisions: (1) Dr.Kodela Siva Prasad Rao Vs. Koritala Venkata Ramanaiah, (2006) 3 ALT (Crl) 495 (2) Anita Thakur and others Vs. Government of Jammu & Kashmir and others, MANU/SC/0915/2016= AIR 2016 SC 3803 (3) Poulose K.K. Vs. State of Kerala, MANU/KE/2479/2012= 2013(4) KHC 539 to contend that the offence under Section 341 IPC is not made out. In view of the above discussion, the said argument is discarded. The decisions cited will not improve the case of the petitioner. 13. Nextly it is argued that the offence under Section 353 IPC is not attracted because to attract the said offence, assault or criminal force must be applied against a public servant in the execution of his duty as public servant or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant. Learned counsel argued that there is no prima facie material in the instant case to hold that criminal force is used against the public servants. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that using a force on inanimate objects or substances will not amount to use of criminal force against a public servant. He argued that in the instant case, it is only alleged that the accused went upon the dais and thrown away some chairs and tables and pulled down the shamiyana. There is no other allegation that they applied criminal force directly against any of the pubic servants except on the aforesaid inanimate objects. To buttress his arguments, he relied upon the decisions of the High Court of Madras in D.K.Aswatha Narayana Gupta Vs. There is no other allegation that they applied criminal force directly against any of the pubic servants except on the aforesaid inanimate objects. To buttress his arguments, he relied upon the decisions of the High Court of Madras in D.K.Aswatha Narayana Gupta Vs. J.Muneppa, MANU/TN/0340/1942= AIR 1943 Mad 257 and the High Court of Kerala in Durga Prasad Vs. State of Kerala 2014 LawSuit(Ker) 1317 . 14. On careful scrutiny of the facts and laws, I am unable to accept the above argument. Section 353 IPC reads thus: “Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” So, to attract the above offence, the assailant must use either assault or criminal force to a public servant while executing his duty or to prevent or deter that public servant from discharging his duty. Be that it may, the term ‘assault’ is defined under Section 351 IPC as follows: “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.” Thus the definition of assault would show that it is a prior stage before using criminal force, i.e., the accused by his gestures or preparations causes any apprehension in the mind of the other that he is going to use criminal force against him. 15. Then, the term ‘criminal force’ is explained in Section 350 IPC as follows: “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. Example: A incites a dog to spring upon Z, without Z’s consent. Here, if A intends to cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z, he uses criminal force to Z.” 16. Thus, a collective reading of Sections 353, 351 and 350 IPC will give an understanding that in order to commit the offence under Section 353 IPC, the assailant can use either assault or criminal force against the public servant to perpetrate the offence. As already stated supra, an assault is a gesture or preparation oriented offence and it is a premonition for user of criminal force. Whereas criminal force is an intentional user of force to any person without that person’s consent in order to commit any offence or intending or knowing it to be likely that use of such force will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used. 17. In the instant case, if the offence of assault is taken into consideration, the allegations in the FIR, 161 Cr.P.C. statements and charge sheet are that when the public servants refused to accede to the demand of the accused, the accused went upon the dais, thrown out the tables and chairs and they pulled down the shamiyana causing security hazard to them and public. It is true that a criminal force is to be used against the persons and not against the inanimate objects. However, when the entire gamut of facts is taken into consideration, though the accused caused mischief with respect to inanimate objects, however, they pretty well knew that their user of criminal force against inanimate objects, was likely to cause injury, annoyance or fear to the public servants and other people attended there. In that view, prima facie offence under Section 353 IPC was made out. Consequently, the decisions cited by the petitioner have no application. The above facts and circumstances would also attract the offence under Sections 506 and 427 IPC besides Section 3 of the PDPP Act. 18. Therefore, on a conspectus, I find no merits in the contention of the petitioner to quash the proceedings. The petitioner shall face the trial and vindicate his defence stand before the trial Court. Before parting, the trial Court shall proceed with the trial without being influenced by the observations made in this order. 19. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Therefore, on a conspectus, I find no merits in the contention of the petitioner to quash the proceedings. The petitioner shall face the trial and vindicate his defence stand before the trial Court. Before parting, the trial Court shall proceed with the trial without being influenced by the observations made in this order. 19. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending for consideration shall stand closed.