Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 511 (AP)

B. Koteswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-08-06

LALITHA KANNEGANTI

body2021
JUDGMENT In this Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Petitioner/Accused No.3 seeks to quash the proceedings against him in S.C.No.86 of 2020 on the file of learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, which was taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 448, 323, 324, 354, 307, 506 and 342 r/w 34 of IPC. 2. The complaint allegations briefly are that the de-facto complainant is a Telugu Desam Party worker and a follower of Dr.Kodela Siva Prasada Rao, Ex. Minister. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are the Police officials at Narasaraopet. A-1 after taking charge as SDPO, Narasaraopet, started openly supporting Congress-I Party and used to abuse members of the TDP Party. The complainant and late Jallipalli Anjibabu and others are important workers in TDP at Narasaraopet and they protested the statement of A-1 that he would open rowdy sheet against Dr.Kodela Siva Prasada Rao. A- 1 used to abuse them in filthy language and he used to threaten them that they would be implicated in false cases. 3. While so, during municipal elections, A-1 as usual openly supported Congress-I party and saw that they won the election. He wanted to frighten the TDP workers and as a part of it, on 15/16- 09-2005 at 02:00 A.M., A-1 along with A-2 and A-3 came to the house of the complainant in a jeep and while A-2 and A-3 stood outside the house, A-1 unlawfully trespassed into the house and tried to forcibly took the complainant without informing the reason to the inmates of the house. When the wife of the complainant namely Vijayalakshmi protested his acts, A-1 abused her in filthy language and pushed her aside by touching her shoulder. When the inmates and neighbours like Yellam Venkateswarlu, Chirumamilla Brahmaiah, Rolla Narsireddy, SK.Gaffoor and G.Kumar intervened, A-1 handed over the complainant to A-2 and A-3 and all the accused forcibly thrown the complainant into the jeep and took him away to the Narasaraopet Rural Police Station and beat the complainant with sticks and tortured him by using third degree methods. Later, Crime No.44 of 2005 was registered against him under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. Later, Crime No.44 of 2005 was registered against him under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. On 16.09.2005, the complainant and Anjibabu were produced before the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopet, by giving prior warnings and threats at the point of revolver not to reveal about the torture put to them before the learned Magistrate. With great difficulty, the complainant and Anjibabu were able to reveal the harassment meted out to them and the learned Magistrate while remanding them to judicial custody ordered for their medical examination but the accused could manage the doctors at Government Hospital, Narasaraopet, and got avoided noting the injuries though visible on their bodies. The Police filed a petition seeking permission to shift the accused to some other jail from Subjail, Narasaraopet, but the same was dismissed, as otherwise the accused would have killed them and projected it as an encounter. While so, the wife of the complainant sent a petition to the Secretary, District Legal Services Committee, Narasaraopet, which was referred to the Lok-Adalat, Narasaraopet. A-1 appeared before the Lok-adalat and gave an undertaking that he would not indulge in illegal activities with regard to the complainant and Anjibabu. Hence, the complaint. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the 1st respondent/State, and perused the record. 5. A-1 appeared before the Lok-adalat and gave an undertaking that he would not indulge in illegal activities with regard to the complainant and Anjibabu. Hence, the complaint. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the 1st respondent/State, and perused the record. 5. Denying the complaint allegations as false to the core and motivated to tarnish the reputation of the duty bound Police officials and to wriggle out of Crime No.44 of 2005, learned counsel for the Petitioner/A-3 would argue that the de-facto complainant herein is a notorious criminal involved in a number of crimes i.e., 1) Crime No.180 of 2004, for the offences under Sections 509, 506 and 323 R/w.34 of IPC, 2) Crime No.184 of 2004, for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 323 and 506 R/w.34 of IPC, 3) Crime No.28 of 2005, for the offence under Section 151 Cr.P.C., 4) Crime No.154 of 2005, for the offence under Section 153(2) Cr.P.C., 5) Crime No.156 of 2005, for the offences under Sections 143, 352, 323, 506 IPC, 6) Crime No.271 of 2005, for the offences under Sections 143, 448, 341, 352, 353 and 506 R/w.149 IPC, on the file of Narasaraopet Town Police Station and 7) Crime No.44 of 2005, of Rompicherla Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. 6. It is further argued that Crime No.44 of 2005 is concerned, on the eve of municipal elections, the Police, on credible information that the accused were preparing country bombs in Vipperla village outskirts, proceeded there and found the complainant and Anjibabu with bombs and when they tried to apprehend them, both the accused hurled bombs on them and tried to escape but the Police arrested them and registered the crime and produced them before the learned Magistrate, before whom the accused did not make any whisper about their ill- treatment. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the allegation that the complainant was arrested from his house on the midnight of 15/16.09.2005 is palpably false. These facts were brought to the notice of Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Narasaraopet, when the wife of the complainant presented a petition before the said authority. However, without taking the facts into consideration learned Magistrate took cognizance of the private complaint. 7. These facts were brought to the notice of Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Narasaraopet, when the wife of the complainant presented a petition before the said authority. However, without taking the facts into consideration learned Magistrate took cognizance of the private complaint. 7. It is further argued that even assuming the complaint allegations to be true, still cognizance cannot be taken without obtaining sanction from the competent authority under Section 197 Cr.P.C. It is further argued that except omnibus allegations, no specific allegations are made against the Petitioner/A-3. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. 9. On a careful scrutiny of the complaint averments, it is clear that the accused allegedly committed the offences during the course of discharge of their official acts. It cannot be said that their acts have nothing to do with their job. Under Section 197 Cr.P.C., it is trite law that when a public servant allegedly committed an offence while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the competent authority. In this case, such sanction is not obtained as no copy of the sanction is produced before this Court. In that view of the matter, the lower Court is not legally justified in taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the complainant. For such grave procedural irregularity, the complaint is liable to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 in S.C.No.86 of 2020 on the file of learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, for the offences under Sections 448, 323, 324, 354, 307, 506 and 342 r/w 34 of IPC are hereby quashed and the petitioner/A-3 is acquitted of the charges. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.