Allowed

Dumpala Srikar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Sept 2021CRLP/1744/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioner A-3 in a case of running a brothel, holding allegations against him were false and continuation would amount to abuse of process of law under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the petitioner/A-3 in Crime No.88 of 2021 of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad are quashed.

Dumpala Srikar Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1744 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Dumpala Srikar, S/o. D. Trinatham, Aged about 20^years, Occ. Student, R/o.H.No.3-1-2612, Krishna Nagar, Road No,3, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶8

...Petitioner/A-3

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, represented by.its Public^{Prosecutor, for the High Court} of State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

¶11

... RespondenUCom^pla ina nt

¶12

Petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C^{pra.yjng that in,the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of criminalPetition, the High court may be pleased} to^quash the FIR No.88^{of 202'1 pending on the file of BanjaraHills Policestation'} Hyderabad in so far as the^{petitioner/A-3is concerned in the interest of justice.}

¶13

t.A. NO :1 OF 2021

¶14

Petition under section^{482 ol cr.P.c praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased} todispensewiththefilingofthecertifiedcopyofFlRNo'SBof202lpendingonthe file of Banjara^{Hills Police Station,Hyderabad'}

¶15

l.A. NO: 2OF 2021

¶16

PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P,Cprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated intheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybepleased tostayallfurtherproceedingsinFlRNo.sBof2O2lpendingonthefileofBanlara Hills Police Station,^{Hyderabad in so far aS the petitioneris concerned, pending} disposal of the^{main Criminal Petition in the intefest of justice'}

¶17

This Petitlon^{coming on for hearing, uponperuglngthe Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal^{Petition and upon hearing the argumentsof Sri CH' Ravinder'} Advocate for^{the Petitionerand the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalfof the} Respondent.

¶18

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶19

HQNOURABLE JUSTICE^{G. SRI DEVI} CRIMINA^{L PETITION No.1744ofZ21,}

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Criminal^{Petition is filed underSection482 Cr'P'C'} seekingquashingoftheproceedingsagainstthepetitio::rer/A-3in Crime No.88 of^{2021, of Banjara Hi1ls Police Station,Ilyderabad,} which was registered^{for the offences punishabte under St:ctions 370,} 370 (A) (2) of I.P.C.^{and Sections3,4 and 5 of the Imm':ral Traffic} (Prevention) Act.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that A-1 has been^runningthe brothel house at H.No.B-1-329l A/1/1.5, I(ohesar Co1on1', Shaikpet, Banjara H111s, Hyderabad, by procuring the sex workerr by luring them that he will pay huge money and also contacting the customers through Lokanto app and collecting Rs.1,000/- per customer for having sex with the sex workers. A-1 used to send the customers to the sexual workers, L.Ws.Z and 3, as they are also resl,ling in the above said prehises and L.Ws.2 and 3 used to give concLoms to the customers to participate in sex with several workels. It is also alleged in the F.i.R. that A-1 sent A-2 and A-3 to the above said premises to have sexual intercourse with L.Ws.2 and 3. lleann,hile, on receipt of credible information, the Sub-lnspector of Police, raided the place and apprehended A-2 and A-3 ancl r escued the victims with the assistance of Women Police Constables; recorded tl-re confessional statements of A-2 and A-3, seized two mobile

¶23

¶24

phones, net cash of Rs.1,000/- each from the possession of A-2 and A-3 and 10 un-used condoms kept on tl're bed of the above houseⁱⁿ the presence of panchas. After foliowing the procedure prescribed, the police registered a case in Crime No.88 of 2021, for the offences punishable under Sections 370, 370(A) (2) of I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

¶25

Heard learned Counsel for the peiitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecr-rtor for the respondent

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire allegatrons made in the F.l.R. are absolutely false and the petitioner never committed such offence, he never ilvolved in any such immoral activity and he is not the customer. It is^further submitted that when the petitioner was proceeding on his two wheeler vehicle, he had noticed some quarrelling at the premises referred to above and out of culiosity, he went there and in the meantime the police came there and un-necessarily arrested^the petitioner though he is no way connected with the said offence.^{It is} also submitted that as per the complaint and remand report,^{all the} allegations are against A-1 only and in so far this petitioner^is concerned except stating that he was present in the house there^{is no} allegation that he had participated in sex with the^femalesex workers, who were present there and, therefore, no offence^{is made} out against the petitioner and as such continuation^{of the criminal} proceedings against the petitioner/A-3 is an abuse^{of processof law.}

¶27

It is further^{submitted that the petitioner is a young boy aged about} 20 years,^{prosecuting B-Tech-IIi year in Spoorth'rEngineering} College at^{B.N. Reddy Nagar'Ranga ReddyDishict and if the} proceedings^{are to be continued'his career is at stakeand his future} will be ruined.^{Hence, prayed to quashthe proceedings against the} petitioner-A3.

¶28

Learned^{Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that} petitioher/^{A-3 is iiable for charge underSection 370 (A) (2) I'P'C and} prayed to^{dismiss the Criminal Petition'}

¶29

6, The scope^{and exercise of powersunder Section 482 CI'P'C'} has time and^{again come before the ApexCoul t lt is settled} position of^{law that the power underSection 482 (lr'P'C'has to be} exercised^{sParingly,carefully and with great cau tion' It is also} settled^{positionof law that if any abuse of the process leadingto} injustice^{is brought to the notice of the court' then the court would} be^{justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in} the absence^{of specific provisions in the Statute'}

¶30

ln this^{regard,the land mark iudgment is the State of} Haryatn^{tt, Bhnianlall in which Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down} the following^guidelines.

¶31

"In^{the backrlropof the interpretationof the variousrelevant} provisions^{of the Codeunder ChapterXIV and of t)re principles of} law enunciated^{by thisCourt in a series of decision:;relating to the}

¶32

'^{(r 992) scc (crl.)426}

¶33

¶34

cxercise of the extra-ordinary por?r,er under Articie 226 or the inherent powers Under Sechon 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of ary Court or otherwise to secure the er.rds of justice, though it may not be possible to 1ay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶35

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.

¶36

Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justilying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.

¶37

Whele the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complarnt and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶38

Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magrstrate as contemplated Under Section 155 (2) of the Code.

¶39

Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient gr.ound for proceeding against the accused.

¶40

\Alhele there is an cxpress legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance

¶41

¶42

of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provi;ion in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redrt'ss for the grievance of the aggrieved par!v.

¶43

\44rere 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.'

¶44

In Prof, R,I(Vijayasarathy and another u. Surlha Seetham and anothei the Apex Court held that^"where the ave:ments in the complaint read on its face, do not disclose the ingredierlts necessary to constitute offences under the Penal Code, it amounls to abuse of process of 1aw".

¶45

In the instant case also, the case of the prosecution is that A-1 sent A-2 and A-3 to the above said premises to have sexual intercourse with L.Ws.2 and 3. The specific case of the petitioner, who is an Engineering Student, aged about 20 years, is that on the date of incident while he was proceeding on his two-wheeler vehicle, he noticed some quarrelling at the premiser; referred to abbve and out of curiosity he stopped the vehicle end standing there and in the meantime, the police people cam e there and arrested the petitioner though he is in no way connec ted with the said crime. Further, as per the complaint and remancl report itself show that all the allegations are against A-1 only and that it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had participated in sex with the female sex workers, who were present at the premises,

¶46

'?(2019)^{3 Scale 563}

¶47

¶48

except stating^{that the} Petitioner^{and A-2 were present at the place'} Further, the^{petitioneris a young boy' aged about 20 years'} studying^{B.Tech-IIl year and if the proceedingsare to be continued} without his fault,^{his careerwillbe marred}

¶49

In view^{of the abovefacts and circumstances and for the} foregoing^{reasons, I am of the consideredopinion that continuation} of the criminal^{proceedings against the petitioner/A-3 would} amount^{to abuseof processof law' Having regard to the law laid} down in^the iudgments^{cited supra' I find that it is a fit caseto} inherent^{jurisdictionunder Section482 Cr'P C to quash the} "r"..is" proceedings^{against the petitioner/A-3 only in Crime No'88 of 2021} of Baniara^{Hills Police Station,Hyderabad'}

¶50

ln the^{result, the Criminal Petition isallowedThe} proceedings^{initiatedagainstthe petitioner/A-3 in Crime No'88 of} 2021 ofBanjara^{Hil1s Police Station' Hyderabad are hereby quashed'}

¶51

As^{a sequel thereto, MiscellaneousPetitions'if any' pending in}

¶52

this Criminal^{Petition,shail stand closed'}

¶53

¶54

SD/ONESIM ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR - /,TRUE^COPYI' SECTION^OFFICER

¶55

'"'lH:Utiriift1l?:{LkrdillEE}1t:ilL:€;lHrT'}"r:',;i":'3'"+"'" i t*., CCs^{to the Asst}

¶56

; i*Tsltsi^{t'j:#fl,HliJ"""""toPucr}

¶57

Two^{CD CoPies} NAMK

,,/

HIGH COURT

GSDJ

DATED:09/09/2021

ORDER

CRLP.No.1744^o12021

i{-tr ST4 15
o
'.n
d 1t sEP2olt o
*

¶65

ALLOWING^{THE CRIMINAL PETITION}

Dumpala Srikar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dumpala Srikar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janaveni Raju and Another Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Erugu Balram, R.R.District Vs Vivekananda School and Anr, R.R.District

Naini Rajender Reddy Vs the State of Telangana

Anish Kumar Dundoo Vs State of Telangana

Jatin Agarwal Vs T.Harshini

Smt. Lakshmi Parvathi Vs The State of Telangana and another