Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 812 (TS)

Samatham Gopi v. State of Telangana

2022-12-29

K.SURENDER

body2022
ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioners-Accused Nos.1 and 2 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.3937 of 2021 on the file of XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 – State. Perused the record. 3. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners on 13.07.2021 alleging that the 1st petitioner herein is a service contractor in Coca-Cola company. The 2nd respondent was a zonal head in the said branch, since he had found certain irregularities in 1st petitioner’s contract, he raised objections in approval of the contract bills. In the last week of June, 2021 the 1st petitioner came across him near his office and threatened to kill him if he did not approve his bills. Later he came to know through some well-wishers that 1st petitioner developed grudge against him for not approving the contract bills and assuming that 2nd respondent had an intention to remove his contract from Coca-Cola Company, 1st petitioner was planning to kill him. On 12.07.2021 when the 2nd respondent started in his Car from his house to Apollo Hospital, he saw these petitioners following him and assuming that they would kill him, he drove his car speedily and got out of their vision and in the process could escape from their plan. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent lodged the complaint on the very next day at 05.00 PM, which was registered for the offence under Section 307 read with Sections 511, 506, 120(b) of IPC and took up investigation. 4. The said registration of the FIR was questioned by the petitioners before this Court in the present case, however, the police filed charge sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed I.A.No.01 of 2022 seeking to amend the prayer by substituting C.C.No.3937 of 2021 on the file of XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad in place of Crime No.125 of 2021 of P.S.Lalaguda, the same was allowed. 5. The charge sheet which was filed by the police reflects that ‘during the course of investigation since this Court did not extend stay, the investigating officer could complete the investigation and accordingly filed charge sheet. 6. 5. The charge sheet which was filed by the police reflects that ‘during the course of investigation since this Court did not extend stay, the investigating officer could complete the investigation and accordingly filed charge sheet. 6. In the said investigation report, it is mentioned that Accused Nos.1 and 2 hatched a criminal conspiracy to keep a regular watch on the 2nd respondent – complainant and to capture photographs and wanted to blackmail him. Further, the petitioners came to know that the 2nd respondent was an womanizer and accused No.1 gave an advise of honey trap and planned to blackmail the 2nd respondent by using photos and screenshots of chatting with woman. On 07.07.2021 these petitioners allegedly threatened 2nd respondent in his office, for which reason, a Crime No.124 of 2021 under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC at Lallaguda Police Station was registered. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that on a reading of the complaint, no prudent man would be convinced that any criminal offence is made out on the basis of the complaint. On an assumption that the petitioners would kill him when he has seen them in a rear mirror of the car, a criminal complaint was lodged. However, during the course of investigation, the police did not find any attempt to commit murder, deleted the charge under Section 307 read with Section 511 of IPC, however, the charge sheet is filed under Section 506, 120(B) of IPC. 8. To prosecute any person under Section 506 of IPC, permission from the Magistrate has to be taken in accordance with the Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. In the absence of such permission, the charge sheet is vitiated. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments: i) Y.Muralinadha Reddy v. State and another2014(1) ALD (Crl.) 146 (AP) ii) Juvvadi Raghu and others v. State and another, 2006(2) ALD (Crl.) 634 (AP) iii) Sajjal Agarwal v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, 2011(1) ALD (Crl.) 70 (AP) iv) Tummala Rama Brahmam @ Ram and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, 2016(1) ALD (Crl.) 565 10. Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. reads as follows : 155. Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. reads as follows : 155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases.— (2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. 11. According to Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., no police officer can investigate into a non-cognizable offence unless there is an order by a learned Magistrate. 12. Since the crime was registered for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 511 of IPC no such permission was required. However, when the police found that there was no offence that was made out under Section 307 read with Section 511 of IPC and committed the petitioners for trial under the offence 506 of IPC, which is non-cognizable, it is mandatory that the police seeks orders from the concerned Magistrate for filing the charge sheet for the offence under Section 506 of IPC. There is no such order which is given by any jurisdictional Magistrate, for which reason, the cognizance of the said charge sheet cannot be taken by the Court and accordingly, has to be set aside. 13. On facts also no case is made out for the offence under Section 506 of IPC. Though the complaint does not make a mention about any honey trap or planning to blackmail the 2nd respondent, such instances are reflected in the charge sheet. It appears that the case is made up against the petitioners herein. However, in view of the prohibition under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., the petitioners succeed in the present application and the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners – Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.3937 of 2021 on the file of XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.