Partly allowed

Dr. Shankhabrata Bagchi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC19 Oct 2012CRLP/3810/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of multiple petitions by the Superintendent of Police, other police officers, and private individuals to quash criminal proceedings. The Court noted inconsistencies in the complainant's allegations regarding an attempted killing and admission of insurance claim based on rash and negligent driving. Finding no prima facie incriminating material against most accused, the petit

What did the court decide?

Crl.Pi. Nos. 3810, 7810 allowed; Crl.Pi. No. 4067 allowed regarding A-2, A-6 but dismissed regarding A-3. Proceedings quashed as to allowed petitions. Complainant allowed to adduce further evidence.

Dr. Shankhabrata Bagchi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Corruption | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

Crl.P.Nos.3810, 4067 and 7810 of 2010

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

All these Criminal Petition are related to proceedings in P.R.C.No.2 of 2010 (PRC) registered for offences punishable under Sections 307, 330, 220, 466, 506 r/w 120-B IPC on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, hence, they are being disposed of by this common order. They are filed to quash the proceedings which are against the petitioners therein.

¶5

2. The petitioners and the 2^nd respondent in all these petitions are A-1, A-2, A-3, A-6, A-4 and A-5 and the complainant in the PRC. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the PRC.

¶6

3. Before actually examining the merits of the petitions, it is necessary to note briefly the facts pleaded or alleged in the corresponding complaint which are as follows:

¶7

The complainant is a real estate businessman. He also inter alia involved in cotton business along with D. Kiran Kumar (A-5) and his father D. Venkata Ramaiah (A-4). During the course of that business, some differences and disputes arose between the complainant and A-4 and A-5 on the ground that they had dubious financial transactions by reason of which, according to the complainant, A-4 and A-5 developed grudge against him. It is alleged that A-4 and A-5 to seek vengeance and harass the complainant conspired together and hatched a plan in the execution of which they approached and influenced A-1 i.e., Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, using their clout in consequence of which on the directions of A-1 and A-2

¶8

(Mr. B. Seetha Ramaiah, Inspector of Police, West (L&O) Circle Police Station, Guntur Town, Guntur District), A-3 got registered a case in Crime No.105 of 2009 for offence punishable under Section 365 IPC incorporating false and baseless allegations. Further on 22-07-2009

¶9

at about 7-00 AM, A-3 (Mr. K. Sesha Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Pattabipuram (L&O) Police Station, Guntur), on the directions or instructions of A-1 and A-2, approached the complainant’s room along with some constables, and so also the complainant’s business partner D.V. Prasada Rao and his employee Jaipal Reddy and caught hold of the complainant and others who were also present there and took them into illegal custody and tortured them and illegally detained the complainant’s business acquaintances and people known to him namely Kapoor Abhay Kumar, George Tony, T. Rambabu and Mohd. Sherifuddin. It is further alleged that later A-3 along with some of his police personnel seized the complainant’s Hyundai Accent car bearing registration No.AP 10 AG 8383 at M/s. AYYON Consultancy at about 11-00 PM. Thereafter the complainant, D.V. Prasada Rao, K. Abhay Kumar and three others were taken by vehicles towards Guntur, during which enroute A-3 and other police personnel further abused and harassed the complainant in filthy language and also manhandled him which the complainant strongly protested but it resulted in further harassment of him. According to the complainant thereafter A-3 informed him that his end had come whereas A-1 and A-2 instructed to finish off him by reason of which then he requested A-3 not to kill or harm him, but A-3 continued to threaten and intimidate him. Further it is alleged that on the instructions of A-3, the driver of the vehicle by which they were being taken stopped the vehicle at Gurajala area on the pretext of attending the calls of nature in consequence of which he was made to get down along with others. Further while he was standing by the side of the road, he was suddenly forced to push on to the main road while a speeding lorry was arriving with a deliberate intention of killing him by reason of which that lorry hit him as a result of which he received injuries and became unconscious whereas he regained his consciousness at People’s Trauma & Emergency Hospital, Guntur and then realized that his right hand and right leg were amputated followed

¶10

by his shift to the Guntur General Hospital by 108 Ambulance. It is claimed by the complainant that he submitted representations to the State Human Rights Commission on 25-07-2009 and 03-08-2009 and to the Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 30-07-2009 for taking necessary action. It is further alleged by the complainant that on 22-08-2009 at about 6-30 PM, a police constable by name Hari (A-6) approached him in the hospital and threatened him and his son Jayakrishna with dire consequences including threatening to implicate his son in false criminal cases and compelled his son under threat of causing harm to him (complainant) to write as dictated by him a false representation to the Human Rights Commission to the effect that the earlier representation in fact given by him was false and he was withdrawing that representation and accordingly a note was prepared which was taken by A-6 but A-6 inadvertently left the original draft corrected by him with the complainant.

¶11

The complainant alleges further that there is imminent danger to his life from A-1 to A-6. Therefore, he pleads that A-1 to A-6 are liable to be prosecuted and punished for the offences alleged.

¶12

4. Before the learned Magistrate, sworn statements of the complainant (PW-1), D. V. Prasada Rao (PW-2), K. Abhay Kumar (PW-3), P. Jaipal Reddy (PW-4), K. Jaya Krishna (PW-5), Rambabu (PW-6), George Tony (PW-7), Md. Sharfuddin (PW-8), Dr. A. Srinivasa Rao (PW-9), K. Ravinder Babu (PW-10) and D. Pradeep Reddy (PW-11), were recorded.

¶13

5. As born out by the record earlier a case was registered in Crime No.105 of 2009 for offence punishable under Section 365 IPC on the file of Pattabhipuram Law and Order Police Station, Guntur, basing on the report given by A-4 in this case against one Devulapalli Vara Prasad, Kura Srinivasa Rao (defacto complainant in this case), Kapoor Abhay Kumar, George Tony, Tiruvedhi Rambabu, Mohammad Sharifudin, Syed Mumtaz and George Starth on the ground that they

¶14

involved in kidnapping Devarasetty Kiran Kumar, son of the defacto complainant. On conducting necessary investigation of the case, the Inspector of Police, West Law and Order Circle, Guntur Town filed charge sheet against them for offences punishable under Sections 343, 365 and 395 r/w 34 IPC. On the other hand on a report given by one K. Sesharao with regards to the said accident in which the complainant is said to have received serious injuries, the case was registered in Crime No.99 of 2009 for offence punishable under Section 337 IPC on the file of the Law and Order Police Station, Gurazala, against the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AP 26Y 3015. These circumstances certainly have bearing upon the case on hand.

¶15

6. Learned counsel for A-1, A-2, A-3 to A-6, A-4 and

¶16

A-5 have contended that no specific allegations are made out against A-1, A-2, A-3 to A-6, A-4 and A-5 with regards to the alleged offences. They claim respectively that though it is alleged that at the instance of A-1, the Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, and A-2, the Inspector of Police, West Law and Order Circle, Guntur Town, A-3 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Law and Order Police Station, Guntur, got registered a false case against the complainant and others for offence punishable under Section 365 IPC and it is further alleged that on 2207-2009 at about 7-00 AM, A-3 on the directions or instructions given by

¶17

A-1 and A-2 itself approached the complainant’s room along with some Constables, the complainant’s business partner D.V. Prasada Rao and his employee Jaipal Reddy and caught hold of the complainant and others and later there was an attempt to kill the complainant by pushing him against a running vehicle absolutely those circumstances are not substantiated apparently by reason of which the proceedings are to be quashed so far as A-1 to A-3 are concerned at the outset. It is further contended by them that there is no

¶18

material about the participation of A-4 to A-6 with regards to the arrest of the complainant and others and harassing them consequently. According to them just on the ground that A-4 and A-5 got grouse against the complainant in view of their business affairs, they could not be implicated in the case. It is specifically contended that absolutely there is no material to the effect that any particular police officer pushed the complainant in an attempt to kill him whereas the record only provides that somebody pushed him then. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the complainant made a claim before his insurer for compensation asserting that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver claiming that that fact is sufficient to demolish the entire version of the complainant. It is claimed that therefore the ingredients of the alleged offences have not been established prima facie. Therefore, ultimately they seek for quashing the proceedings as prayed for.

¶19

7. Therefore it is to be seen as to whether sufficient grounds are made out in order to attract the alleged offences or whether there are grounds to quash the proceedings as prayed for.

¶20

8. It is needless to say that only when sufficient material is there, a case can be registered by a police or concerned Judicial Magistrate of First Class as the case may be. Similarly unless sufficient material is there, no Court can prosecute anybody for any offence. If that is done, it is nothing but abuse of the process of law and harassment of the accused concerned and curtailing his or their life and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution.

¶21

9. The statutory bodies which are entrusted with certain statutory powers should act or work for the public at large, if they resort to deviate from that concept, it is against the democratic norms by reason of which the public loose faith in them and also consequently suffer as the case may be which will definitely disturb the peace and tranquility in the society. When it is alleged that A-1 and A-2 were behind the arrest of the complainant and others, harassment of them

¶22

and also attempt to kill the complainant, there should be sufficient material apparently at the outset to take cognizance of those allegations. What is important is that just it is alleged that as influenced by A-4 and A-5, A-1 and A-2 gave instructions to A-3 to detain and to do away with the life of the complainant which in fact is without substance apparently. Those allegations appear to have been made just on surmises and conjectures or for some extraneous considerations.

¶23

10. What is significant is that on the ground that the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AP 26Y 3015, the corresponding case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC by the concerned police. Learned counsel for A-4 and A-5 has in this connection drawn the attention of this Court to a letter issued to the Chief Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Guntur, on behalf of the complainant for paying necessary compensation because of the injuries received by him in the accident apart from referring the corresponding sworn statements of various witnesses. Any admissions made by the complainant in this context are to be seriously taken. There should be consistency of the ascertainment of the allegations throughout subsequent to the accident by the complainant or others concerned with if any.

¶24

11. In fact in the said letter addressed to the Chief Manager, LIC of India, Lakshmipuram Branch, Guntur, it was informed that the complainant was having insurance policies bearing Nos.673335895 (New Bhima Kiran) and 673329301 (Endowment) issued by the office for Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- respectively, that on 23-07-2009 at about 6-30 AM the complainant met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver following which he was taken to the Peoples Trauma & Emergency Hospital, Old Club Road, Kothapet, Guntur for treatment, that consequently his right hand upto above wrist and right leg below knee were amputated in the hospital

¶25

and that thus he became entitled to compensation. Thus it is categorical that a different stand was taken by the complainant with regards to the occurrence.

¶26

12. On the other hand as per the sworn statements of the complainant (PW-1), Rambabu (PW-6), George Tony (PW-7) and Md. Sharfuddin (PW-8), somebody pushed the first of them and he fell down, they did not specify as to by whom it was actually done. There are statements of D.V. Prasada Rao(PW-2), K. Abhay Kumar (PW-3), P. Jaipal Reddy (PW-4) and K. Jaya Krishna (PW-5) about this aspect but are only hearsay in nature. Further the statement of the complainant (PW-1) also discloses that A-3 stated that A-1, the Superintendent of Police, instructed them to do away with his life. It also reads that his friends were not allowed to get down from the vehicles whereby his intention appears to be that it was done deliberately for the purpose of seeing his end. On the other hand, as per the statement of

¶27

D.V. Prasada Rao (PW-2), after the accident A-3 stated something to the driver of the crime vehicle. It is also found in the statement of Md. Sharfuddin(PW-8) that on 22-07-2009 they were taken before press where their photos with masks were taken while A-1 to A-3 were present along with some Constables. The sworn statement of Dr. A. Srinivasa Rao (PW-9) reveals that he examined the complainant on 23-07-2009 at about 3-10 PM in Peoples Trauma & Emergency Hospital, Guntur and found the following grievous injuries.

¶28

1. Crush injury of right leg and foot with loss of bone, sole with exposed muscles and tendons.

¶29

2. Crush injury of right hand and wrist with absent distal pulses with loss of bone and hand hanging over lose skin.

¶30

3. Fracture of Fibula with ankle dislocation.

¶31

There is no dispute about the medical evidence apparently. 13. The circumstances enumerated above are not sufficient to

¶32

come to any conclusion about the involvement of

¶33

A-1, A-2 and A-4 to A-6 in the incident in question. There is no good basis and admissibility of what is stated by the complainant in his statement that A-3 informed him that A-1 gave instructions to him to do away with his life. On the other hand K. Ravinder Babu (PW-10), Legal Coordinator, Reliance Communications Ltd., Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda,Hyderabad, in his sworn statement disclosed that as per the orders of the Court he furnished necessary call details (Ex.P-4 attested) with covering letter Ex.P-3 relating to the mobile phone with SIM card No.9392470012 of Mr. Abhay Kumar Kapoor (PW-3) for the period from 01-07-2009 to 31-07-2009 according to which there was a first entry relating to an incoming call from SIM card No.9908235504 dated 01-07-2009 and there was last entry relating to an outgoing call made to mobile phone with SIM card No.9951999356 dated 25-072009. D. Pradeep Reddy (PW-11) in his sworn statement gave similar particulars with regards to mobile phone with SIM card No.9160504948 belonging to D.V. Prasada Rao (PW-2) (Ex.P-6 is the attested copy of call details and Ex.P-5 is the corresponding covering letter). These statements do not specifically reveal anything which is incriminating against any of the accused in the case.

¶34

14. Apparently there is no incriminating material against A-1, A-2 and A-4 to A-6 with regards to the alleged offence by reason of which they cannot be prosecuted accordingly. However the complainant is at liberty to adduce necessary evidence with regards to their complicity in the matter whereas the learned Magistrate has to consider that and take necessary measures at appropriate stage. 15. With regards to the application of the ingredients of Section 307 IPC, when the question of attempt to kill the complainant is ruled out, Section 307 IPC is not tenable. With regards to the other offences the same can be considered by the Court below on the basis of the material available at the time of

¶35

framing necessary charges.

¶36

16. Subject to the observations made above, Crl.P.Nos.3810 and 7810 of 2010 filed by A-1, A-4 and A-5 are allowed and Crl.P.No.4067 of 2010 is allowed so far as A-2 and A-6 are concerned and is dismissed so far as A-3 is concerned.

¶37

_________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

¶38

Date: 19-10-2012 YCR

Dr. Shankhabrata Bagchi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Shankhabrata Bagchi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sairam Granites repby its Proprietrix Inturi Bhramaramba Vs M/s. Shriram City Union Fiance Ltd.

S.Venkata Ramana, Vs The State of a.P.,rep.by its Public Prosecutor

G.Lingam Vs Uppala Srinivas

Madireddi Lakshmi Narayana , Chinna Vs The State of Ap., through Ps. III Town L Ando

Alladi Narasimha Rao, (A1) Vs M/s. Core Tree Solutions Private Limited

Palla Ramachandra Rao Vs The State of Ap.,through Kanigiri Ps.,Kanigiri