Dismissed

Gunti Ramchander, v. The State of a.P., through S.H.O.

Telangana HC21 Apr 2014CRLP/777/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed to quash an F.I.R. under Sections 120-B, 153-A, and 506 IPC. The Court held that prima facie material exists to attract Section 153-A regarding public tranquility and dismissed the petition for want of merit, noting that investigation is required for remaining allegations.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed as devoid of merits; investigation required.

Gunti Ramchander, Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

*** HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR + CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 777 OF 2012 % 21/04/2014**

¶2

# Gunti Ramchander & Ors. … Petitioners/A-2 to A-5 V/s. $ The State of Andhra Pradesh Through Station House Officer, Narsampet Police Station, Warangal district, Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad & Anr. .. Respondents/Complainant ! Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. V. Raghunath ^ Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor < Gist : > Head Note : ? CITATIONS : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶4

PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.777 OF 2012

¶6

Between:

¶7

Gunti Ramchander & Ors. … Petitioners/A-2 to A-5 V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Through Station House Officer, Narsampet Police Station, Warangal district, Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents/Complainant Counsel for Petitioners : Sri V. Raghunath Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor The court made the following : [order follows]

¶8

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.777 OF 2012

¶10

O R D E R :

¶11

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash F.I.R. in Crime No.5 of 2012 of Narsampet Police Station, Warangal district, registered for offences under section 120-B, 153-A and 506 IPC.

¶12

2. Heard both sides.

¶13

3. Advocate for petitioners submitted that averments of complaint do not attract any of the offences i.e., section 120-B, 153-A and 506 IPC and the petitioners as citizens have every right to express their view under the Constitution and the allegations made in the complaint are frivolous. He further submitted that section 153-A IPC is only in respect of race, religion, language etc. He further submitted that complainant is Inspector of Police and he has no right to give a complaint and any grievance it should be for the person whose name is referred in the papers i.e., Sri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu, therefore, it is a fit case to quash the F.I.R.

¶14

4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that from the averments of the complaint, it is clear that there is a conspiracy to obstruct and disturb tour programme of Ex-Chief Minister, Sri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu and there is every likelihood of

¶15

disharmony of enmity between different religions, racial language or regional groups and Inspector of Police was right in giving a complaint. He further submitted that there is no bar under law to give complaint by any person, therefore, there are no grounds to quash the F.I.R.

¶16

5. The main contention of Advocate for Petitioners is that allegations in the complaint do not attract the ingredients of Section 153-A IPC. It is better to extract Section 153-A IPC which reads as

¶17

follows:

¶18

Section 153-A IPC :

¶19

Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony :

¶20

153-A (1) Whoever –

¶21

(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or

¶22

(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, or

¶23

(c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely trained to use

¶24

criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional groups or caste or community and such activity, for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community,

¶25

shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both.

¶26

153-A (2) : Offences committed in place of worship, etc. Whoever commits an offence specified in subsection (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.

¶27

6. On a plain reading of Section 153-A I.P.C., it is clear that any

¶28

act which is prejudicial to the harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes and communities and which disturbs or likely to disturb public tranquility is an offence. As seen from the complaint, on 03/01/2012 there was a press statement in daily news paper, “Sakshi”, “Eenadu”, “Namaste Telangana” and other news papers by the petitioners herein protesting the visit of Sri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu to Palakurthy Assembly Constituency of

¶29

Warangal district, which is proposed to take place on 06/01/2012. It is also clear from the complaint that even one week prior to 03/01/2012 there were series of press statements protesting the visit of Sri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu. Every citizen has right to visit any place in the country and no one can prevent a citizen from visiting a particular place. As seen from the complaint, these petitioners have issued press statement to obstruct and disturb tour programme of Sri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu on the ground that he is opposing for separate Telangana State. From the above it is clear that there is prima facie material attracting the ingredients of Section 153-A of IPC and the correctness of these allegations have to be verified during investigation.

¶30

7. The other objection of Advocate for Petitioners is that Inspector of Police has no locus standi to give a complaint and if any insecurity is felt it shall be by the Ex-Chief Minister, Sri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu or any other person connected with him but not by the Inspector of Police. For this, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that every citizen has a right to lodge a complaint and even police can register offence suo moto if they apprehend breach of law and order. According to Section 39 of Criminal Procedure Code, every person who is aware of the commission or intention to commit any offence shall inform the same to the nearest Magistrate or Police Officer. So Section 39 of Criminal Procedure Code gives right to a citizen to give a

¶31

complaint when any offence is noticed by him or likely to be committed. So the objection of Advocate for Petitioners with regard to locus standi of Inspector of Police cannot be accepted in view of specific provision in the Criminal Procedure Code, because as a citizen he can report.

¶32

8. The next objection of Advocate for petitioners is that there is no material for the offence under section 506 IPC. Section 506 IPC is punishment for criminal intimidation and Criminal Intimidation, insult and annoyance is defined in Section 503 IPC. According to which, any threat likely to cause injury to person or reputation of an individual is an offence. Threat through paper statement is, to prevent Ex-Chief Minister, Sri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu from visiting to the Assembly Constituency of Palakurthy in Warangal district. The correctness of these allegations have to be verified only after full-fledged investigation. With regard to criminal conspiracy it has to be culled out from the circumstances and there cannot be any direct material for the criminal conspiracy. For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to quash the F.I.R. and this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶33

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶34

___________________

¶35

JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .

¶36

21/04/2014 I s L NB: L.R. COPY TO BE MARKED.

¶37

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶38

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 777 OF 2012

¶39

[N B: L.R. COPY TO BE MARKED]

¶40

Circulation No. 156 Date:21/04/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43

Gunti Ramchander, v. The State of a.P., through S.H.O.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunti Ramchander, v. The State of a.P., through S.H.O.

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

M.Bhanu Sree , Y.Bhanu Sree Vs The State of Ap.

V.Veerabhdara rao Vs State of Ap., Rep.byits

Guggilla Kashanna, Vs The State of A.P.

Kondepudi Venkata Ramana , rAmana, Vs State of A.P.

Md.Mokthar, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Cikram Maruthi Vs The State of Ap., Rep.byits