Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 537 (TS)

Shaik Manzoor v. State of Telangana

2022-08-17

D.NAGARJUN

body2022
ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner - accused No.4 for quash of the proceedings against him in C.C.No.2594 of 2019 on the file of learned XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar registered for the offence under Sections 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts in brief as can be gathered from the record available before this Court are as hereunder: a) On 25.10.2019 at 1.00 PM the respondent No.2-de-factocomplainant has lodged a complaint before the Narsing Police Station alleging that she is the elected office bearer and serving as Treasurer in Pbel City Owners Association, which is registered association under Telangana Society Act and as part of recovering dues owed by residents to the association, notices were sent out after the deadline mentioned in the notices. The electricity connection for Mr. Pankaj Choudary (Flat D Goo9) was disconnected after serving multiple notices. Mr. Pankaj Choudary along with Mr. Sunil Jha, Juber Khan and Mr. Manzoor went to the office of Pbel City Owners Association and indulged in extreme harassment and misbehaviour with the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant. Mr. Juber also threatened to throw the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant from the balcony and they abused the respondent No.2-de-factocomplainant in abusive words, which was not only visible in cctv but also witnessed by senior citizens Mr. Poojari and FM Sushil. Hence, the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant has prayed to take necessary action. b) The said complaint was registered by Narsingi Police Station as Cr.No.735 of 2019 under Sections 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded, scene of offence panchanama was conducted and notices under Section 41(A) of the Indian Penal Code were issued to accused and after completion of investigation, the investigating agency has filed charge sheet, which was taken on file as C.C.No.2594 of 2019 on the file of learned XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar. 3. 3. Aggrieved by the proceedings in C.C.No.2594 of 2019 on the file of learned XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, the petitioner-accused No.4 has filled the present criminal petition on the following grounds: i) The petitioner – accused No.4 is only a mere spectator even as per the statement of the respondent No.2-de-factocomplainant and a spectator to an alleged offence cannot be made as an accused nor can be subjected to an ordeal of trial. ii) The extreme misbehaviour or alleged harassment is not an ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 506 or 509 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Now the point for determination is: “Whether the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.4 in C.C.No.2594 of 2019 on the file of learned XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? 5. Heard Sri Mohd.Osman Shaheed, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 6. The petitioner alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. According to respondent No.2-de-facto complainant and the Police, who filed charge sheet, there are disputes between the members of the Pbel City Owners Association, which was registered under the Telangana Society Act. The dispute started when the association has disconnected electricity connection pertaining to accused No.1 in Flat D G009. Pbel City Owners Association stated to have sent multiple notices to accused No.1, who has been residing in the said flat. After disconnecting the electricity connection of the accused including the petitioner, who is accused no.4 went to the scene of offence and threatened the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant and abused them in filthy language and thereby on a complaint by respondent No.2-de-facto complainant, a case in Crime No.735 of 2019 of Narsingi Police Station was registered for the offence under Sections 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.4, the petitioner-accused No.4 is no way connected with the alleged offence and he has not uttered anything, which attracts either offence under Section 506 or 509 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.4, the petitioner-accused No.4 is no way connected with the alleged offence and he has not uttered anything, which attracts either offence under Section 506 or 509 of the Indian Penal Code. The statement of respondent No.2-de-facto complainant recorded by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge cum XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would go to show that on 17.10.2019 accused No.1 i.e., Pankaj Chowdary came to the office of Pbel City Owners Association to talk to them, wherein the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant and others have tried to convince him to clear the dues. However, accused No.1 threatened them that he would lodge complaint against them in the Police Station. Later accused No.1 and three others including the petitioner-accused No.4 came to the office of Pbel City Owners Association again and abused the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant in filthy language and threatened her. One Zubeer Khan (accused No.3) stated to have uttered that he will see the end of respondent No.2-de-facto complainant. The said Zubeer Khan (accused No.3) also stated that “ghazab ke log hai a shekande ko age kar diye”. On that one Sunil Jha (accused No.2) has laughed at respondent No.2-de-facto complainant. Further, Zubeer Khan (accused No.3) has stated that he will throw her from the balcony. 8. So far as the petitioner-accused No.4 is concerned, it is specifically mentioned that Mansoor Shaik (petitioner-accused No.4 herein) was only a mere spectator. 9. So, on going through the statements of respondent No.2-de-factocomplainant very carefully and closely, it has been clearly attributed that petitioner-accused No.4 was a mute spectator, which means that the petitioner-accused No.4 has not uttered anything against anybody and he simply closed his mouth and not even expressed anything against anybody including the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant. 10. Though the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant has complained of many overt acts against accused Nos.1 to 3, so far as the petitioner-accused No.4 is concerned, nothing has been attributed. Once, there is no complaint or allegation against the petitioner-accused No.4 and once the petitioner-accused No.4 has stated to have shut his mouth and was a mute spectator at the time of alleged incident, it cannot be alleged that the petitioner-accused No.4 has committed the offence under Sections 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. Once, there is no complaint or allegation against the petitioner-accused No.4 and once the petitioner-accused No.4 has stated to have shut his mouth and was a mute spectator at the time of alleged incident, it cannot be alleged that the petitioner-accused No.4 has committed the offence under Sections 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to fasten the liability under Sections 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant is expected to threaten the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant with dire consequences and also abused him in filthy language. 11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent No.2-de-factocomplainant that the statement of the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant that the petitioner-accused No.4 was a mute spectator is a subsequent event and prior to that he has also joined with others and abused her apart from threatening with dire consequences. 12. Even if such content of statement of de-facto complainant is accepted, on going through either complaint or statements of de-facto complainant, nothing is mentioned as to what the petitioner-accused No.4 has uttered against de-facto complainant or anybody. When there are no overt-acts and when there is no allegation that the petitioner-accused No.4 has made such utterances, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.4 in C.C.No.2594 of 2019 on the file of learned XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and thereby the proceedings against petitioner-accused No.4 in C.C.No.2594 of 2019 on the file of learned XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.