Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 227 (TS)

Barla Ilamma v. State of Telangana

2022-03-16

K.LAKSHMAN

body2022
ORDER : Heard Mr. Chandrasekhar Reddy Gopireddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. 2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. No.182 of 2021 pending on the file of XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. 3. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.T.C. No.182 of 2021. The offences alleged against them are under Sections - 323 and 504 of the India Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). The allegations levelled against the petitioners herein are that on 07.08.2021 at about 2.00 p.m., the petitioners herein abused the de facto complainant and assaulted her. 4. Perusal of the record would reveal that Yacharam Police Station had received the complaint dated 08.08.2021 at about 9.30 A.M. According to them, they have made G.D. entry on 08.08.2021, obtained permission from the XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam on the same day i.e., 08.08.2021 as required under Section - 155 (2) of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, they have recorded the statements of three (03) witnesses and laid the charge sheet. 5. Perusal of the record would also reveal that Mrs. Nimmaraju Kishtamma, wife of N. Mallaiah and sister of petitioner No.2 and sister-in-law of petitioner No.1, had filed a suit vide O.S. No.256 of 2021 against the petitioners herein and others for partition and separate possession. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam vide order dated 14.07.2021 in I.A.No.559 of 2021 directed the petitioners herein and other defendants not to alienate the suit schedule property therein. According to the petitioners, the said suit is pending and the said interim order is subsisting. The petitioners herein have also filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.18821 of 2021 against the said Smt. Nimmaraju Kishtamma and the Police Officials questioning their action in calling the petitioners to the police station and directing to settle the disputes without following the procedure laid down under law. In the said writ petition, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the said Smt. Nimmaraju Kishtamma had given a complaint against the petitioners herein, investigation is under process. In the said writ petition, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the said Smt. Nimmaraju Kishtamma had given a complaint against the petitioners herein, investigation is under process. If the investigation reveals that the disputes between the petitioners and the said Smt. Nimmaraju Kishtamma are civil in nature, the police will not interfere with them. Recording the said submission, this Court closed the said writ petition on 05.08.2021. Despite the said submission, the police have violated the said order. Therefore, the petitioners herein have filed a contempt case vide C.C. No.1097 of 2021. In the said contempt case, the Station House Officer, Yacharam Police Station has filed counter stating that he had received the complaint from respondent No.2. On receipt of the said compliant, an entry was made into the Station House General Diary, after inquiry action will be taken as it appears non-cognizable contents in nature attracting the provisions of Sections - 323 and 504 of IPC. To know the veracity in the contents of the compliant of the complainant, who is the mother-in-law of petitioner No.1 and mother of petitioner No.2, the Station House Officer summoned the petitioners herein to the police station and got the matter enquired with them. When the petitioners appeared before him, at that time, the complainant orally stated to him that they did not provide any food for the last few days to them and daily came to their house and quarrelling with her and beat her. After hearing the same, immediately, the petitioners scolded the complainant, abused them in filthy language and trying to hold her neck before him. Therefore, the police pacified them and sent them away from the police station. Except the same, nothing had happened as alleged in the affidavit. In the said counter, it is also mentioned that on receipt of non-cognizable complaint, a requisition was filed on 08.08.2021 before the XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, seeking to accord permission to investigate the non-cognizable contents of the complaint under Sections - 323 and 504 of IPC and to file charge sheet. The same is pending consideration. As soon as the permission is received from the Court, a petty case would be booked against the petitioners and file appropriate report before the concerned Court. The said counter was filed on 31.08.2021. 6. The same is pending consideration. As soon as the permission is received from the Court, a petty case would be booked against the petitioners and file appropriate report before the concerned Court. The said counter was filed on 31.08.2021. 6. The contents of the counter filed by the Station House Officer, Yacharam Police Station in C.C. No.1097 of 2021 would reveal that as on the date of filing the counter i.e., 31.08.2021, the Station House Officer, Yacharam Police Station has not received permission from the XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam to investigate the non-cognizable offence. Even then, the Station House Officer, Yacharam i.e., Sub-Inspector of Police, Yacharam, has registered a case in Consecutive No.16 of 2021, recorded the statements of three (03) witnesses. The Station House General Diary entry dated 08.08.2021 would reveal that it was Sunday, Petty Cases Registered was shown as NIL. The particulars of the said entry were shown in Telugu language while other details are in English. 7. As discussed above, in the counter filed in C.C. No.1097 of 2021, the Station House Officer, Yacharam Police Station has stated that the permission as required under Section - 155 (2) of the Cr.P.C. is awaited though request was made on 08.08.2021 and in the charge sheet he has stated that he has obtained permission as required under Section - 155 (2) of the Cr.P.C. on 08.08.2021. Thus, such statement of the Station House Officer, Yacharam Police Station is self-contradictory. As per the Station House General Diary, dated 08.08.2021, which date fell on Sunday and, therefore, obtaining permission under Section - 155 (2) of the Cr.P.C. from the Magistrate to register and investigate into the non-cognizable offences by the police on Sunday / public holiday is highly improbable. Though the alleged incident took place on 07.08.2021 at 2.00 p.m., respondent No.2 has lodged the compliant on 08.08.2021 at 9.30 a.m. The Police Station is at Yacharam Village and the learned Magistrate Court is in Ibrahimpatnam. According to the Station House Officer, Yacharam, he has obtained permission under Section - 155 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and registered the crime and recorded the statements of three witnesses on the same day, but the said action on the part of the police is also highly improbable. According to the Station House Officer, Yacharam, he has obtained permission under Section - 155 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and registered the crime and recorded the statements of three witnesses on the same day, but the said action on the part of the police is also highly improbable. All the said facts would reveal that the Investigating Officer in petty case STC No.182 of 2021 has laid the charge sheet against the petitioners herein without following the mandatory procedure laid down under Section – 155 (2) of the Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections - 323 and 504 of IPC which are non-cognizable and the Investigating Officer has to obtain necessary permission from the concerned Magistrate for the purpose of registration of a crime and conducting investigation. In the present case, the police failed to follow such mandatory procedure. Thus, the entire action of the Station House Officer, Yacharam Police Station is highly improbable and the same and the same is squarely fall in one of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335, which are reproduced as under : "(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 FIR 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 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. (4) 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. (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 Act concerned (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 Act concerned, 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." 8. In view of the above discussion, registration of crime and conducting investigation and laying charge sheet in S.T.C. No.182 of 2021 by the police is in contravention of Section - 155 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the proceedings in the said case are liable to be quashed. 9. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed quashing the proceedings in S.T.C. No.182 of 2021 pending on the file of XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District against the petitioners herein. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition shall stand closed.