Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 526 (TS)

G. Srinivas Reddy v. State of Telangana

2023-07-19

G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused Nos.1 to 3 to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.9195 of 2021 on the file of Court of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Ss. 354(D), 506 and 509 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State and learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record. 3. The case of the prosecution is that petitioner/accused No.1 was harassing the other Flat owners of the building, including LW5, who is the tenant of respondent No.2/de-facto complainant. Further, he has also disconnected the water connection to their flats and insulted LW4/tenant, when she was watering the plants. Further, petitioner/accused No.1 used to abuse the driver of another flat owner, when he comes to the building by wearing slippers. Further, when the tenant of respondent No.2 went to the terrace of the building, petitioner/accused No.1 warned her not to come again and locked the terrace gate. It is alleged that petitioner/accused No.1 disconnected water connection to all the flats and when LW5/tenant informed the same to the respondent No.2, flat owner along with respondent No.2 came to the flat of petitioner/accused No.1 and questioned him as to why he has disconnected the water connection and locked the terrace gate. It is further alleged that when respondent No.2 was talking to the petitioner/accused No.1, the petitioner/accused No.2 abused respondent No.2/de-facto complainant for coming to their building and further accused No.3, who is the daughter of accused Nos.1 and 2, captured the photos and videos of respondent No.2 and threatened her that she would upload those photos in social media platforms. Petitioner/accused No.1 threatened respondent No.2 stating that no one can come and do anything and that she can express her grievance to anyone and insulted the modesty of respondent No.2 by abusing her in a filthy language, for which, petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 supported him. Basing on the complaint given by respondent No.2, a case was registered against the petitioners herein vide FIR No.291 of 2021 for the aforesaid offences. 4. Basing on the complaint given by respondent No.2, a case was registered against the petitioners herein vide FIR No.291 of 2021 for the aforesaid offences. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the statement made by respondent No.2 that she is residing at Flat No.5, Sri Krupa Apartments, Journalist Colony, Jubilee Hills, is a blatant lie and as per her statement under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., she is residing at Plot No.54/A, Journalist Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, which is a different premises. Further, in the complaint, respondent No.2 stated that petitioner No.1 is harassing and abusing her in foul language and when she sought access to the terrace, which is a common property to all the flat owners, petitioner/accused No.1 warned her and troubled the tenants by disconnecting the water supply to them and in fact, C.C. cameras were fixed at convenient places for watching the movements of persons coming into the building. It is contended that the entire allegations made in the charge sheet do not attract any offence against the petitioner for the offences under Ss. 354(D), 506 and 509 of IPC. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the police after due investigation filed charge sheet and therefore, it is not a fit case to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that respondent No.2 and her brother are the joint owners of Flat No.5, 2nd floor, Saikrupa Nilayam, House No.8/2/293/82/J/A/55/A, Journalist Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and she is a single mother having two minor children. Her brother is residing in USA. Subsequent to the death of father of respondent No.2, petitioners herein started harassing her mentally and physically and as such, keeping in mind the safety of herself and her minor children, she shifted into the adjacent building i.e., Plot No.54/A, Journalist Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and rented out Flat No.5 in Saikrupa Nilayam, Journalist Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. It is further contended that petitioners herein are the owners of three flats out of six flats and they are having an evil eye over the remaining three flats in the building. It is further contended that petitioners herein are the owners of three flats out of six flats and they are having an evil eye over the remaining three flats in the building. Further, petitioner/accused No.1 has installed CCTV cameras in the building in such a manner that the flat of respondent No.2, which is the adjacent building, is also covered, in order to capture her videos and upload the same in the social media to outrage her modesty. It is further contended that petitioner/accused No.1 disconnected water supply to the flat of respondent No.2 and blocked her access to the terrace and when respondent No.2 intended to go to the terrace to rectify the water problem, petitioner/accused No.1 used muscle force to stop her, from entering into the building. Further, petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 abused respondent No.2 in filthy language and uttered vulgar comments on her single parenting. It is also contended by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that petitioner No.1 instructed petitioner No.3 and their watchmen to capture photos & videos and started threatening to upload the same in social media platform, due to which, respondent No.2 was constrained to file a complaint before the Station House Officer, Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad vide FIR No.291 of 2021. Further, it is contended that petitioner has an alternative remedy to file discharge petition before the Court below and therefore the question of invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. does not arise. 7. To support his contentions, learned counsel for respondent No.2 relied upon the following judgments: (a) In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held as follows: "...In the past, this Court has even laid down some guidelines for the exercise of inherent power by the High Courts to quash criminal proceedings in such exceptional cases. We can refer to the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to take note of two such guidelines which are relevant for the present case: "(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. (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." (b) Similarly, in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, the Court has held that criminal proceedings can be quashed but such a power is to be exercised sparingly and only when such an exercise is justified by the tests that have been specifically laid down in the statutory provisions themselves. It was further observed that superior courts "may examine the questions of fact" when the use of the criminal law machinery could be in the nature of an abuse of authority or when it could result in injustice. (c) In the case of Sangeeta Agrawal v. State of U.P. (2019) 2 SCC 336 , it was held as under: "In our view, the Single Judge ought to have first set out the brief facts of the case with a view to understand the factual matrix of the case and then examined the challenge made to the proceedings in the light of the principles of law laid down by this Court and then recorded his finding as to on what basis and reasons, a case is made out for any interference or not." (d) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 . has held as under: "...Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions i.e. Sec. 397 and Sec. 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Sec. 397 or Sec. 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Sec. 397 or Sec. 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Sec. 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Sec. 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. 27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers." 8. On a perusal of entire record, it is evident that there are civil disputes between petitioners and respondent No.2 with regard to the water connection of the said apartment. Further, respondent No.2 is not the resident of the said apartment. On a perusal of entire record, it is evident that there are civil disputes between petitioners and respondent No.2 with regard to the water connection of the said apartment. Further, respondent No.2 is not the resident of the said apartment. It is specific contention that when respondent No.2 went to the house of petitioner No.1 and confronted him as to why he is not giving access to the terrace and disconnected the water supply, the petitioners No.1 and 2 abused her, while petitioner No.3, who is the daughter of petitioners No.1 and 2, has captured the photographs, recorded the video and all the petitioners threatened respondent No.2 that they would upload the video in social media. 9. Admittedly, the offences alleged against the petitioners are under Ss. 354(D), 506 and 509 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. Sec. 354 (D) of IPC reads as follows: "(1) Any man who- (a) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or (b) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking". 10. In the present case, the complaint made by respondent No.2 does not disclose that the petitioners have followed respondent No.2 or tried to contact her to foster personal interaction despite of respondent No.2 showing disinterest. 11. Further, it is alleged by respondent No.2 that the photographs and videos of respondent No.2 have been captured by petitioner No.3 who is also a women and threatened her that they would upload it in the social media plat form. 12. On a bare reading of charge sheet, it is evident that the investigating officer has mentioned in the charge sheet that it is stated by respondent No.2 that the petitioner No.3 has captured the photos and videos while they were confronting with each other. But, the charge sheet does not disclose any such material being collected during the course of investigation. Furthermore, Sec. 354(D) of IPC, which deals with stalking, speaks about the sexual intent of a male person towards women. The entire contents of the complaint does not disclose about petitioner/accused No.1 having any sexual intent towards respondent No.2. But, the charge sheet does not disclose any such material being collected during the course of investigation. Furthermore, Sec. 354(D) of IPC, which deals with stalking, speaks about the sexual intent of a male person towards women. The entire contents of the complaint does not disclose about petitioner/accused No.1 having any sexual intent towards respondent No.2. Furthermore, the statements of witnesses also disclose that petitioner/accused No.1 was harassing respondent No.2 since six years and on the date of incident, petitioner/accused No.2 who is wife of petitioner/accused No.1, abused respondent No.2 and petitioner/accused No.3 captured the photos and videos of respondent No.2. The entire dispute relates to non supply of water to the tenants of respondent No.2 and restricting their access to terrace. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that ingredients of the offence under Sec. 354(D) of IPC are not attracted against the petitioners. 13. Sec. 509 of IPC deals with word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. As per the contents of charge sheet, petitioner/accused No.1 has not insulted the modesty of respondent No.2 in any manner and the complaint only disclose about the disputes between petitioner/accused No.1 and respondent No.2 since past six years. Therefore, the ingredients of Sec. 509 of IPC are not attracted towards the petitioners. 14. Criminal intimidation and punishment for criminal intimidation are defined under Ss. 503 and 506 of IPC. As per Sec. 503 of IPC, whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. As per Sec. 506 of IPC, whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both. As per the contents of complaint, the ingredients of criminal intimidation are not attracted against the petitioners as there is no question of threatening or injuring respondent No.2 in any manner. As per the contents of complaint, the ingredients of criminal intimidation are not attracted against the petitioners as there is no question of threatening or injuring respondent No.2 in any manner. Consequently, the ingredients of offence under Sec. 506 of IPC, which deals with punishment for criminal intimidation, are also not attracted against the petitioners herein. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai v. State of Gujarat, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1723 OF 2017 laid down broad principles that emerge from the precedents on the subject, and the same are extracted here under: (i) Sec. 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Sec. 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Sec. 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Sec. 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (vi) In the exercise of the power under Sec. 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance. 16. Bearing in mind the above principles which have been laid down in the decisions of this Court, we are of the view that the High Court was justified in declining to entertain the application for quashing the First Information Report in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The High Court has adverted to two significant circumstances. Each of them has a bearing on whether the exercise of the jurisdiction under Sec. 482 to quash the FIR would sub-serve or secure the ends of justice or prevent an abuse of the process of the court. 17. The High Court has adverted to two significant circumstances. Each of them has a bearing on whether the exercise of the jurisdiction under Sec. 482 to quash the FIR would sub-serve or secure the ends of justice or prevent an abuse of the process of the court. 17. In view of the above settled legal prepositions, the present criminal petition filed by the petitioners under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. invoking the inherent powers of this Court to quash the proceedings against them is maintainable, wherever there is abuse of process of law, this Court can interfere with the proceedings. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that if at all respondent No.2 has any grievance against the petitioners herein, she can file a civil suit for injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with her rights. In the present case, purely a civil dispute has been coloured as a criminal proceeding. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 18. In view of the above discussion, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.9195 of 2021 on the file of Court of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.