Dismissed

P. Ram Manohar Rao v. B. Ganga Ram Goud

Telangana HC25 Apr 2013CRLP/2989/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Criminal Bench dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petitioners sought committal of their case to Sessions Court and warrant procedure. Court held evidence did not support offences under Section 354 or aggravated Section 506 IPC, finding it a basic quarrel over dues.

What did the court decide?

Petition to commit case to Sessions Court and convert to warrant procedure dismissed.

P. Ram Manohar Rao Vs B. Ganga Ram Goud — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2989 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

1. The petitioners, who are PWs.2 and 3 in C.C.No.2054 of 2005 on the file of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, filed the present Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) dissatisfied with the order dated 07.10.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.2895 of 2009 in C.C.No.2054 of 2005.

¶5

2. A case was registered against the respondents 1 to 3 herein in Cr.No.187 of 2005 of Narayanaguda Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323, 509 and 506 read with 34 of IPC. The police investigated into the matter and filed the charge sheet against the respondents 1 to 3 herein for the said offences. The gist of the allegations in the charge sheet are that the petitioners and the respondents 1 to 3 are residents of flats situated at Gokulkunj Apartments, Street No.5, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. One Kakkulal Sohni is the president of the said flat owners’ association. The members in their general body meeting decided to issue notice to all the residents to pay their arrears of monthly maintenance as per the Bye-Laws of the Association. Accordingly, notices were also issued to the accused, who are residents of flat Nos.105 and 103. In spite of giving the due notice, they failed to pay the arrears. On 07.05.2005 at about 8.30 a.m., the President, Secretary and others went to the stilt area of the said building to overlook the disconnection of drainage and water supply by the plumber, who was asked to disconnect the lines. Before taking up the actual disconnection of sewerage lines they sent the security guard to inform the accused that the sewerage line and water lines are going to be disconnected for non-payment of maintenance. When the plumber by name Balaiah was in the process of disconnecting the sewerage line of flat No.105, the

¶6

inmates of the said flat came down and started beating the complainant and also Rammanohar (secretary) by threatening that they would kill them for their acts and break both legs and hands. When Rammanohar’s wife came to the rescue of her husband, Dr.Chandrahasa, who is 3^rd respondent herein, pushed her against RCC column but she saved herself. Thereafter, the said Dr.Chandrahasa (A3) punched her and abused her in filthy language and A1 let loose his dog on them. It is further alleged that after the incident, the accused have brought some persons and were threatening the office bearers of the association and other members, who were present at the time of incident. Basing on these allegations, a report was given to the police, who investigated into the matter and filed the charge sheet.

¶7

3. Heard Sri Bonala Krishna Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri B.Sudhakar Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶8

4. It is not in dispute that the entire trial in the present case is over and the case is posted for arguments. At that stage, an application in Crl.M.P.No.2895 of 2009 in C.C.No.2054 of 2005 is filed before the trial Court for the following prayers:

¶9

i. to permit for engaging a Senior Counsel, Sri Bonala Krishna Rao, Hyderabad Bar, for assisting the learned Public Prosecutor, in the conduct of case trial;

¶10

ii. medical certificates bearing O.P.Nos.9026, 9027 and 9028 pertaining to Sri Kakku Lal Sohni, Sri P.Ram Manohar Rao and Smt.P.Medha Veni dated May 7, 2005, from the Casualty Medical Record of Gandhi Hospital and get the same evidenced by summoning Dr.T.Ravi;

¶11

iii. attested extracts of the complaints lodged by Sri Kakku Lal Sohni and Sri P.Ram Manohar Rao on 17/04/2005; and, 07/05/2005, from P.S.Narayanaguda; and to be

¶12

evidenced by PW.8, Sri V.Narsimha Reddy, in his further evidence; and

¶13

iv. original registration certificate of Residents Welfare Association of Gokul Kunj Apartment, Himayatnagar, Hyderaband; and legal notices caused by registered post addressed to accused Dr.Chandrahasa and returned as refused, from Sri Kakku Lal Sohni, and to be evidenced by PW.8 Sri V.Narsimha Reddy.

¶14

5. The said Crl.M.P.No.2895 of 2009 was disposed of by the trial Court on 07.10.2009. Thereafter, the petitioners herein have filed a revision petition before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge in Crl.S.R.No.6555 of 2009, which was rejected on 06.01.2010. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.10.2009 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2895 of 2009, the present application is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayers:

¶15

i. to quash the proceedings/orders, impugned herein, passed by the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.2895 of 2009, on October 7, 2009 in C.C.No.2054 of 2005 on his file and to ordain with the directions;

¶16

ii. for getting the other complaints lodged by the victims PW.1, Kakkulal Sohni; PW.2 P.Ram Manohar Rao and/or its attested extracts from the General Dairy, dated April 17, 2005; and May 7, 2005, from P.S. Narayanaguda and to be evidenced by PW.8 V.Narasimha Reddy, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, by recalling him for further evidence;

¶17

iii. original registration certificate of Residents Welfare Association of Gokul Kunj Apartment, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad; and the legal notices caused by the registered posts addressed to the accused and returned as refused from PW.1 Kakkulal Sohni, the then president of the Welfare Association, and/or PW.2 Ram Manohar Rao, as regards the arrears, due and payable by them to the Association by certain date; and intimating them that, on their failure, the Water and

¶18

Current connection to their habitat will be disconnected, to be evidenced by the PW.1 Sri Kakkulal Sohni, and/or PW.2 Ram Manohar Rao, by recalling them;

¶19

iv. for committing the case for Sessions Trial, as regard the accusations made out about the outraging the modesty of PW.3, Smt.P.Medha Veni U/s 354 IPC (A.P. State Amendment), and/or, atleast

¶20

v. for converting the case into warrant proceedings for the offence committed to grave and dire criminal intimidation, punishable U/s 506 IPC Later Part, visiting with larger punishment.

¶21

6. A companion of the prayers made before the trial Court and before this Court show that the petitioners are seeking more than what they have sought for before the trial Court. The request for committing the case to the Court of Sessions and also by converting the case into Warrant procedure for the offences committed being grave was never sought for before the learned Magistrate. The request for engaging a senior advocate for assisting the learned Public Prosecutor in the conduct of case was not sought for in the present application.

¶22

7. Be that as it may, the learned counsel Sri Bonala Krishna Rao mainly contended that the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence let it by the prosecution would clearly disclose that the offences alleged to have committed are to be tried by warrant procedure and also by the Court of Sessions, as such seeks conversion of the case or committal of the case to the Court of Sessions. According to him, a reading of the charge sheet along with the evidence of PWs.1 to 9, which are filed before this Court, would disclose that the accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 354 and also 506 (2^nd para) of IPC and as such they being punishable with more than five years imprisonment and they being triable by the Court of Sessions, the said case has to be committed to

¶23

the Court of Sessions. He also seeks for marking of certain documents, which according to him, are relevant for a just decision of the case.

¶24

8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the applications are filed only with a view to drag the litigation. According to him, the applications could have been filed at the earliest point of time and no explanation is forthcoming as to why the said application is made at a belated stage. He would further contend that the evidence on record does not warrant committal of the case or that the case to be tried in warrant procedure.

¶25

9. A perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 9, which are filed along with the present petition, would disclose that none of the accused tried to outrage the modesty of PW.3, who is the wife of PW.2. Even according to the evidence of PW.3, when she went to rescue her husband, A3 caught hold of her and punched her towards the pillar causing injury on her right hand and that he manhandled with his right hand. Her evidence does not disclose that the accused have done any act whereby her modesty was outraged. It was a quarrel, which took place when the members of the society tried to disconnect the water and sewerage lines to the flats of the accused for nonpayment of dues to the society. Further, the allegations in the charge sheet coupled with the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 6 would only indicate that the accused came down on receiving information about the disconnection of sewerage and water lines and threatened the president and secretary of the association with dire consequences and in that process they are alleged to have assaulted PWs.1 to 3, with their hands. Immediately thereafter they were taken to Gandhi Hospital, where PW.9 examined them. He found an abrasion over the left hand of PW.3. The said injury was simple in nature. Though PW.2 complained of guiddiness, the doctor did not find any external injury on PW.2. The doctor also examined PW.1, who complained of

¶26

pain in his left wrist, but there was no external visible injury. The said injury was also simple in nature. In view of the evidence of PW.9, the doctor, who examined the injured on the same day, it cannot be said that the accused have committed offences punishable under Section 506 (2^nd para) or under Section 354 of IPC warranting committal of the case to the Court of Sessions. Moreover, it was a quarrel that took place between the flat owners and the members of the association when they tried to disconnect the water and sewerage lines.

¶27

10. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks a direction for bringing the reports lodged by PWs.1 and 2 dt.17.04.2005 and 07.05.2005 from Narayanaguda Police Station to be marked through PW.8. When PWs.1 and 2 were aware about the existence of the said documents at Narayanaguda Police Station, nothing prevented them from getting those two documents marked while they were in the box. If really PWs.1 and 2 had given any report to the police either on 17.04.2005 or on 07.05.2005, as observed by the learned Magistrate, the same may be placed at the time of arguments and the relevancy of the said documents can be decided at that time. In my view the request for summoning those two documents after completion of entire trial appears to be unreasonable and in all probability the said request is made only to drag on the proceedings.

¶28

11. With regard to medical certificates bearing O.P.Nos.9026, 9027 and 9028 pertaining to PWs.1 to 3 dated 07.05.2005, the same need not be produced on record as the said documents in the form of Exs.P-3 to P-5 are marked through the evidence of PW.9, the doctor, who treated them on the said date. Further, there is no request for production of the said documents in the present application, though such a prayer was made before the trial Court.

¶29

12. In view of the findings arrived at, the request for committal of the

¶30

case to the Court of Sessions on the ground that the offence under Section 354 of IPC is made out and that for converting the trial of present case into warrant trial procedure on the ground of offence punishable under Section 506 (2^nd para) of IPC is made out, is unsustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioners also requested for summoning the original registration certificate of Residents Welfare Association of Gokul Kunj Apartment, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, but the said request is irrelevant for deciding the issue on hand. For the foregoing reasons, the present Criminal Petition filed for the reliefs sought for as indicated above is hereby dismissed.

¶31

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the order uninfluenced by the observations made, if any, in the present application. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶32

____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶33

Date: 25-04-2013 MR

¶34

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶35

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2989 of 2010

¶36

DATE: 25-04-2013

¶37

P. Ram Manohar Rao v. B. Ganga Ram Goud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Ram Manohar Rao v. B. Ganga Ram Goud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Siva Sankar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Maddi Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kunukuntla Sreedhar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Karri Padmavathi, Vs Karri Srinivasa Rao

G.Chennaparaju Kurnool District and 2 Others Vs Magham Padmaeshkumar Nandyal Town and Anr. Rep. by Pp. Hyd

Shaik Nazeer, Vs The State of A.P.