Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1035 (AP)

Bathina Suguna v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-08-08

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

body2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER : This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners/A1 and A2 seeking quashment of the Proceedings in CC No.143 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pithapuram, East Godavari District, against them. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the charge-sheet allegations, are that : (a) Complainant is an Advocate by profession and her husband is a retired V.R.O. and both have established a Society under the name and Style Anti-Corruption People Awareness Society, vide Registered No.477/2013 and they filed PIL No.209 of 2015 before this Court for grant of pattas to the pending beneficiaries in Jaggayyacheruvu Area, Pithapuram by the Revenue Authorities. (b) A1 (Tahsildar) and A2 (Inspector of Police), bore grudge on this issue against the complainant and her husband as the order of this Court would defeat their rights. While so, on the date of offence i.e., 18.01.2016 at about 5.00 p.m., the complainant, her husband and others were discussing about the non-implementation of the orders passed by this Court in the above PIL, A1 and A2 trespassed into the scene of offence alongwith their subordinates. A1 shouted in loud voice on them and A2 high handedly caught hold the collar of LW1 (P.V.S.S.S. Chandra Murthy) and questioned that whether any permission obtained to conduct meeting at the scene of offence for which the complainant and her husband replied that it is not a meeting but it is a gathering in private premises. (c) A2 abused LW1 (P.V.S.S.S. Chandra Murthy) in filthy language and slapped him and dragged him outside for which the complainant obstructed A2 for which, A2 slapped her and abused her in filthy language. Complainant took treatment in Government Hospital, Pithapuram and filed a private complaint on 18.06.2016 against A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 354, 426 and 506 read with 34 IPC. (d) Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pithapuram, East Godavari District recorded the sworn Statement and numbered the case as CC No.143 of 2020 against A1 and A2. (e) Seeking the quashment of the C.C. the present petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned Counsel for petitioners/A1 and A2, Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State and Sri R. Yella Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. 4. (e) Seeking the quashment of the C.C. the present petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned Counsel for petitioners/A1 and A2, Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State and Sri R. Yella Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No.1/A1 is a Tahsildar and petitioner No.2/A2 is an Inspector of Police and both are public servants. Respondent No.2/complainant is an Advocate by profession and her husband is a former VRO and after his retirement, he has constituted a registered Society under the name and style "Anti-Corruption People Awareness Society" and under the guise of the said Society, respondent No.2 and her husband are in the habit of cheating public, threatening public servant and black mailing them and collecting amount from the public. Learned Counsel further submits that the husband of respondent No.2 filed PIL No.209 of 2015, which was disposed of by this Court on 12.08.2015 directing to consider the applications of the petitioners for granting house patta and pass orders as per their eligibility. 5. Learned Counsel further submits that on 18.01.2016, petitioner No.1/Tahsildar having credible information about illegal act of respondent No.2 and her husband calling the innocent public to their house in the name of conducting a meeting and collecting amount from them on the pretext of granting house site pattas showing some list that house pattas were granted to them. Petitioner No.1/A1 reached to the house of respondent No.2 and observed the presence of the innocent public and when she tried to enquire them, respondent No.2 and her husband resisted them and caused obstruction in discharging her duties in the presence of her subordinates which was immediately reported to the police, who registered it as a case in Crime No.18 of 2016 of Pithapuram Police Station against the complainant and her husband for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 188 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. 6. Learned Counsel further submits that as a counter case, the present false complaint has been filed before learned Magistrate Court by suppressing all the facts and after due investigation, police laid charge-sheet against respondent No.2 and her husband, which was numbered as CC No.565 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pithapuram, East Godavari District. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioners were unnecessarily roped into the false case simply on the pretext that they tried to cause hurdle to respondent No.2 and her husband in cheating the public and collecting amount. 7. Learned Counsel further submits that respondent No.2 is not a layman and she is an Advocate by profession. Immediately, after the Court has taken cognizance in CC No.565 of 2016, she has filed the present complaint. Learned Counsel finally would submit that respondent No.2 and her husband are not allowing the witnesses to depose in the case lodged against them. The present complaint is filed in the month of April, 2016 though the offence took place on 18.01.2016. 8. Learned Counsel further submits that respondent No.2 has not filed the affidavit alongwith the complaint which is mandate as per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2015 AIR SCW 2075. Learned Counsel further submits that the complainant and her husband are in habit of making frivolous complaints against the public servants. 9. Learned Counsel submits that necessary sanction is required for taking cognizance against the petitioners and learned Magistrate without looking into those aspects took cognizance erroneously and issued summons to the petitioners. In that regard, learned Counsel has relied upon the decision in D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain, Crl. A No.458 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.1882 of 2018, wherein, at Paragraph 72 held as under : 72. The language and tenor of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act makes it absolutely clear that sanction is required not only for acts done in discharge of official duty, it is also required for an act purported to be done in discharge of official duty and/or act done under colour of or in excess of such duty or authority. 10. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that on the very same date of incident, respondent No.2 has approached the Government Hospital and was discharged on the very same day on the advice to report the matter to the police. 10. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that on the very same date of incident, respondent No.2 has approached the Government Hospital and was discharged on the very same day on the advice to report the matter to the police. Learned Counsel further submits that since respondent No.2 has to make a complaint against the Inspector of Police, she has sent the said complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, through registered post and after waiting for few months, she has lodged the private complaint. Learned Counsel further would submit that respondent No.2 never suppressed anything relating to the case lodged against her and her husband in CC No.565 of 2015 which is very much visible by looking into the annexure attached to the complaint. Learned Counsel would submit that the husband of respondent No.2 filed PIL against the revenue authorities in not considering grant of pattas to the eligible people. In that matter, this Court disposed of the PIL vide order dated 12.08.2015. 11. Learned Counsel would submit that non-filing of the affidavit alongwith the complaint is not a ground for quashment, which is a curable defect and the complaint even now can file said affidavit and she has approached the authorities on the very same day of the incident. Learned Counsel further submits that sanction is not necessary when the Act of the Government Servant is not relating to discharge of their duties. Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners have misused their official position as a public servants and trespassed into the house of respondent No.2 and outraged her modesty by using un-parliamentary language and also physically assaulted her. Learned Counsel finally would submit that the contents of the complaint require investigation to elicit the truth which is a matter of trial and there are no grounds to interfere and quash the case against the petitioners 12. To buttress the contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision in Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka and another, Crl. A No.256 of 2024, dated 17.01.2024, wherein, the Hon'bie Apex Court held that when the acts of the accused are not part of their official duty as a public servant, sanction is not required. To buttress the contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision in Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka and another, Crl. A No.256 of 2024, dated 17.01.2024, wherein, the Hon'bie Apex Court held that when the acts of the accused are not part of their official duty as a public servant, sanction is not required. Learned Counsel further submits that CC No.565 of 2016 filed by the husband of respondent No.2 was disposed of on 17.06.2016 by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pithapuram, East Godavari District. In the light of the said judgment, while they were conducting a meeting in their house, the alleged incident was occurred. During the course of argument, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 placed on record the copy of the orders in PIL No.209 of 2015, in CC No.565 of 2016 and the complaint which was sent to the Deputy Superintendent dated 19.01.2016 and Medico Legal case record to the effect that on 18.01.2016 at about 10.20 p.m., respondent No.2 was examined by the Doctor in CAS Community Centre, Pithapuram wherein, some injuries are identified. She was discharged from the hospital on the very same day and advised to intimate the incident to the police. These documents were not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 13. A perusal of the material on record would show that it is a case and counter case relating to the alleged incident, which occurred on 18.01.2016 at about 5.00 p.m., in the house of respondent No.2. The record would show that petitioner No.1 on the very same day at about 9.30 p.m., lodged a case against respondent No.2 and her husband for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 188 and 506 read with 34 IPC. Record also would show that respondent No.2 has approached the Community Health Centre, Pithapuram at about 10.20 p.m., on 18.01.2016, wherein they have recorded the injuries and she was relieved from the hospital as an out-patient and she was advised to intimate the incident to Pithapuram Town Police Station. It is also her case that she has sent a report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 19.01.2016 and lodged the present case against the petitioners. The fact remains that there is evidence from petitioner No.1 establishing her presence at the time of the alleged incident by lodging a report against respondent No.2. It is also her case that she has sent a report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 19.01.2016 and lodged the present case against the petitioners. The fact remains that there is evidence from petitioner No.1 establishing her presence at the time of the alleged incident by lodging a report against respondent No.2. On the other hand, there is evidence from respondent No.2 that on the very same date, she has gone to the hospital and identified with some injuries. As rightly put by learned Counsel for respondent No.2 it is a case and counter case. Therefore, the argument that the complaint has been presented before the learned Magistrate in the month of April, 2016, though the incident occurred in January, 2016 by the time, the police filed charge-sheet the Court took cognizance of the case on 03.03.2016 against respondent No.2 and her husband has no force for the, reason that the complainant furnished the material to show that she went to hospital and took treatment and reported the incident to the police. 14. It is apt to mention here that alongwith the complaint, respondent No.2 annexed the copy of Crime No.18/2016 which is registered against her and her husband, statement of petitioner No.1 in that crime and charge-sheet filed in Crime No.18/2016 and the casualty OP dated 18.01.2016. 15. That apart, a cursory look at the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence for the offence under Sections 447, 323, 354, 426 and 506 read with 34 IPC against the petitioners would show that there is an observation that it is not proper stage to look into the defence of the accused. In that view, the argument advanced that the complainant has suppressed about the case lodged against her and her husband in the private complaint falls to ground. As rightly put by learned Counsel for respondent No.2 that non-filing of the affidavit alongwith the complaint is not a ground for quashment. Obviously, it can be complied with and though it is a mandate, it is a curable defect. 16. Coming to the aspect of getting prior sanction since petitioners are public servants and whether the act alleged to have been done, was only in discharging their official duties or not, is a matter of mixed fact of law. Obviously, it can be complied with and though it is a mandate, it is a curable defect. 16. Coming to the aspect of getting prior sanction since petitioners are public servants and whether the act alleged to have been done, was only in discharging their official duties or not, is a matter of mixed fact of law. In the light of the case and counter case lodged against each other by both the parties arising out of the alleged incident, it cannot be said that at this stage, whether they have exceeded their duty while discharging the official function or the alleged action on the part of the petitioners is beyond the scope of their official duty. The presence of petitioner No.2 at the alleged incident is in dispute. Section 197 of Cr.P.C., does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service. It is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties. 17. For the aforesaid premise, it is not the stage to decide the issue that the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance without sanction is tenable in law or not. In the light of the backdrop of the legal position referred to supra, and the discussion, there are no grounds warranting interference of this Court. The criminal petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 18. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions, the criminal petition is dismissed. 19. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.