Dismissed

Christine Noerla Rani v. State of Telangana Rep by P.P

Telangana HC25 Jul 2022CRLP/11291/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge sheet, finding prima facie material against the petitioner for trafficking, wrongful confinement, and causing hurt despite a prior FIR closure in another state due to lapses in that investigation.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition for quashing the charge sheet is dismissed as there is prima facie material to proceed with the trial.

Christine Noerla Rani Vs State of Telangana… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11291 OF 2017

¶6

Between:'

¶7

Mrs.Christine Noerla Rani @ Rani Oayala, D/o. Late G.Bernard, aged 61 years, Occ:Housewife, Ryo. 1 176, 8th Main, Gokulam, 3rd Stage Mysore, Karnataka State.

¶8

...PETITIONERYACCUSED No.4

¶9

AND

¶10

State of Telangana, Being represented by P.P, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition under Section 482 oI Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.4 in S.C 229 of 2017 of on the file of lst Addl. District and lVletropolitan Session Judge, R.R. District, Telangana.

¶13

l.A. NO:1 OF 2017^(CRL PMP. NO: 12541 OF 2017 )

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further Proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in S.C.No.229 of 2017 on the file of the I Addl. District and lvletropolitan Sessions Judge, R.R.District, Telangana, pending hearing of the main criminal petition.

¶15

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A. L. Raju, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assiitant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent.

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

THE H( NOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGA]:lJ UN

¶18

CRMINAL PETITION No. 1 1291 Ot' 21) 1 7

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This peti ion is filed by the petitioner I 1\4 t) quash S.C.No.229 of 2Ol7 on the fi1e of the MetropolLtan Sessions Judge, L.B. Na1 ar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶21

The facts in brief, as car be gathered frorr the material placed before t re Court, are as under:

¶22

Originall' , father of the victim used to rvork in the electricity dep; rtment. She has three sisters. Fler firther died in an electric r:rnsformer accident when the vir:tim was three years o1d. O r account of untimely death of lrer father, the family was tot rl1y disturbed, her mother was addicted to alcohol and did not t ike care of her family. Two years thereafter, the victim's mott:r took them to Tandur town and left all the children befo e their relatives. A11 of them u,(:re admitted in social u'elfare residential school. The victim was also admitted in the same school in first class. During the va,:ation, her mother took rr:r to Hvderabad and put her in _h.e trouse of A1 and A2 in C llT colcrny-lo take care of their hitndicapped son.

¶23

¶24

For about four months, the victims mother has collected Rs. 100/- or Rs.200/- per month from A1 arrd A,2 and later she did not come back. Six years thereafter, the' victim was informed that her mother died, but she was not allowed to go and see the dead body or contact with any other person. She spent almost 15 years in the house of A1 and .,{2 in slavery condition without any pay. After she has grown up, A3, who is the son of A1 ald A2 and two years older than the victim, stdited sleeping her bed side frequently at night, used to touch her legs and kiss her. The victim Lrsed to feel very uncomfortable and wanted to tell t1.e other family members, but she was afraid of on account of helpless condition.

¶25

One day she met her neighbour by name Shilpa and informed about her sufference. The said Shilpa told her to go some where and work. After few days, Shilpa relatives by name Sharmila and Rani came there and told that they would^pay Rs.3,000/- per month for cooking at Mysore. As the victim wanted to get out of the house where she is staying, on 07.12.2015, she went to Shilpa's house from where Sharmila

¶26

¶27

took her to her uncle's house. On 08.12.2015 at 5.C0 a.m.^the victim was ta-ke r to Bangalore and from there to M),sor,:

¶28

On 08.1i.2O15, Al filed a complaint befcre: the police stating that h s daughter/victim left the home u,ithout any intimation on which a case in Crime No.142i' of 20 15 as woman missin, ; rvas registered at Rajendranagar I'oiice Station.

¶29

In Mysor :, the victim's situation has treconLc worse. The petitioner her, in /A4, was running a paying gr- e :;t house for accommodatir g the foreigners. The victim madr: to work in the said guest hc use right from morning till evelr r-rg. She rr,,as asked to clea r all 8 rooms with attached bathlor>ms, to cook food and attr nd all household works, includ i :itr1 r.r'ashing of clothes. Afte two days when Sharmila went tl'.ere, the victim complained a;out the work and wanted her to -a.ke back, but, said Sharmili refused. She was being taken tr- r.hurch by the petitioner/A4 and used to insist her to change l-1(:. religion from Hindu to⁽ hristian. The petitioner useri to beat her indiscriminat :1,v. In the year 2015, the petitionrr rvent to Irland with ht--r sisr :r. While going, she beat victim turd told her to *eep the hor se clean. There was nothing in tltr: house to eat.

¶30

¶31

The petitioner gave her Rs. 1O/- and told her to buy some leafy vegetables.

¶32

A paying guest from Englald, who rented a room for 10 days, on observing that the victim rvas not having proper food, has brought some fruits to her as food. The victim told her problem and requested the said guest to help for her escape. The said guest has contacted NGO Odinadi Seva Samstha who informed the police V.V. Puram, Mysore on which police have rescued the victim and kept the victim in a NGO for rehabilitation.

¶33

B. The police Mysore on realizing that the victim is from Hyderabad have informed Prajwala, NGO in Hyderabad. The said Prajwala conducted enquiries and came to know that a missing case was registered at Rajendranagar Police Station and approached A1, but he has given evasive answers. The Director of the Pr4iwala has approached the DGP, Telangala, requesting him to enquire about interstate trafficking angleⁱⁿ this issue on which the case was transferred^from Rajendranagar Police Station to CID.

¶34

¶35

The CID police after converting the ser:tion of law, recorded the statement of victim ald also t:ircumstantial witnesses of M ysore as LWs.2 and 3 and also one Shilpa, the lriend of Al's amily to whom the victim has initi:illy informed about the hare ssment of A1 to A3 and also examined the other witnesses. Tl re police have also examined thr: in-charge of Odinadi NGO Seva Samstha from Mysore and also examined the medical l rofessor, who has given the agr: determination certiiicate bel lnging to the victim, and aftel completion of investigation, :harge sheet is filed allegrng that 1.1 and A2 have committed ofJ :nce punishable under Sections :i23, 324, 344, 370(i)(a)(iv), i74 lPC, Section 16 of Bonded l.aborrr System (Abolition) A,:t, 1976, Section 14(l) of ther Chitd Labour (Prohibition a :td Regulation) Act, 1986 and Sections 75 arrd 79 of Juvenile J,tstice (Care and Protection of Chilrlren) Act, 2015, whereas A3 l'as charged sheeted for the offences unCer Section 354-A(i) and (ii) IPC and Section 12 of Protecr.ion of Children from Sexua Offences Act, 2012, whereas against the petitioner/,* the offences alleged are under Se:trons 323,344, 370(l)(a)(iv) md 374 IPC. Accordingly, rhe Oourt has taken

¶36

¶37

cognizance of the charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused.

¶38

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/A4 has filed the quash petition on the following grounds:

¶39

A. The petitioner is falsely implicated in this case. The victim came to the house of the petitioner rvillingly along with her friend and stayed with them without arly force.

¶40

B. That The police Mysore investigated all the allegations levelled against the petitioner and found them to be fa,lse thereby filed a final report closing the FIR on 21.O5.2016 vide report No.NOlNRl 17 l2016 stating that the victim was major and there were no wounds and that the petitioner/A4 was taking proper care of the victim. Once the complaint registered against the petitioner in Crime No.55 of 2016 was closed by the Mysore police, again the CID, Hyderabad cannot investigate the CASC

¶41

C. It is stated that though she has filed Cr1.P.No.l72O6 of 2O 16 for quashment of FIR, during the^{pendency of that} petition, the police have completed the investigation and^filed

¶42

¶43

charge sheet, tl ereby the said petition has becom: infi-uctuous and thereaJter he present petition is filed to qrar;h the charge sheet filed agair .st her.

¶44

1 1 . Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor hzrs submitted strenuously th;.t there is ample material before the Court in the form of compli int and in the form of statement,s of witnesses that the petiti rner/A4 used to harass the victirn, exploit her and made her :o do work forcibly from morning to evening, Iike cleaning the w rshrooms, cooking the food, washi eg the clothes, but she was n )t given food and not paid the rerr.uneration and hence, submit .ed that she is not entitled to the relief sought for and prayed th s Court to dismiss the petition.

¶45

Heard b rth sides and perused the record.

¶46

Now, t le point for determination is whether the proceedings ;:r S.C.No.229 of 2Ol7 against the pelitioner/A4 can be quash rd?

¶47

The cas: of the police in nutshell is thzrt .\l a.lrd A.2 have taker-r the vi tim u,hen she u,as 4 or 5 years o1d in order to assist their randicapped son and she stayed ther.e for more

¶48

¶49

than 10 years during which time, her services were exploited without making any payment and their son/A3 has exploited her sexually. The petitioner/A4 started harassing the victim, exploited her mentally and physically and used to harass her to work right from morning ti1l evening and made her to clean the rooms, toilets, cook food, wash clothes of paying guests without paying any amount and that when the petitioner/A4 went to other country, victim was given only Rs.10/- and has not kept thd.food available to her.

¶50

The petition er I A-4 is seeking quashment of the charge sheet mainly on two grounds. The petitioner/A4 is seeking quashment of the charge sheet stating that the FIR registered against her in Mysore in Crime No.55 of 2016 was investigated by the Mysore Police in respect of the allegations leveled against her and after full-fledged enquiry the police found the petitioner/A-4 rrot guilty of any alleged offence and closed the FIR. Therefore, the CID, Hyderabad cannot again re-investigate the matter.

¶51

The record filed before the Court would^go to^{show that} poiice Mysore have investigated the^{aliegations leveled against}

¶52

¶53

the petitioner e ed closed the case. However, the stat:mer-rt of the victim reco: ded by the CID Police, Hyderabact and also the statement of tl e other circumstantial evidencr: Lk,: the NGOs and others, wh r rescued the victim, would certarrrll' go to show that the petitic ner beat the victim to work in he,r Jraying guest house in clean.ng the rooms, wash rooms, rvashing the cloths, preparing the food and when she went for atl'oad, she has given Rs. 10/- for victim's food and askecl he'r 1.o buy leafy vegetables anc it is also alleged that she used to bea- her with whatever arti( e found in the vicinity. Thereforr:, thr:se l-hings u.ould clemon ,trate that there is prima facie rnalerial against the petitioner to proceed with the offences allegecl. Therefore, though the police Mysore have done irl,t:sr-igzLtion, the statements r'corded by the CID clearly establish that the petitioner ha; exploited the victim and also harassed her physically an I mentally.

¶54

It is no . the case of the petitioner that she used to pay money every month to the victim. The pet.tionr:r has not explained ev, n in this petition as to in what capacity she has kept the vicl im in her house. If the victim is rvorking in the

¶55

¶56

house, she was supposed to pay some remuneration as the victim is not her relative and no way connected to her. The victim belongs to Hyderabad, Telangana and the incident in respect of the petitioner / A4 allegedly took place in Mysore. On the other hand, there is clear evidence collected by the police that the petitioner/A4 has harassed the victim. Truth or otherwise of the statements of the witnesses would be clear only during the course of trial.

¶57

If really the police Mysore have properly investigated the case, if really, as stated by the petitioner lA4, there is no material against her to proceed with the case, the petitioner has to explain how the statements of the victim and other circumstantial witnesses recorded by the CID Police are against the petitioner/A4. Therefore, when there are serlous allegations against the petitioner f A4, on the simple ground that the police Mysore has completed the investigation and closed the case, thereby the charge sheet against the petitioner/A4 has to be quashed.

¶58

Further, the lapse in the investigation^{of Mysore police is} apparent. They did not^{get the statementof the victim under}

¶59

¶60

¶61

Section 764 CI.P.C., recorded before the learned Nlagistrate at Mysore. Furtt er, the police Mysore did not visit Flyderabad to record the sta ernents of persons, who havt: sen - lhe victim to Mysore. The p,,lice Mysore have not investigated n th,: angle as to how and i: r what capacity the victim rvas residing in the house of the retitioner/A4 and further the mt:rlir:al certificate issued by thr doctors in Mysore would go l.o s hovz that the victim is a n ajor, however the medical r:erti fi c;ate issr.red in Hyderabad u culd go to show that the vir:tirn is a minor. Therefore, fa< tually, the investigation of CID P,,.i< e, Hyderabad is much wid :r t-han the investigation done b5' th: police of Mysore.

¶62

Further , the petitioner/A4 has not fiIed tJris ccmplaint to quash the ir vestigation of the police at FIR stage. She could have taken steps to disposal of criminal petition when investigatior was in progress on the groutld that the crime was already inve ;tigated by the Mysore police ther,:by z.nother case cannot be :egistered on the similar compiai:rt_. Though the petitioner/tr4 has filed petition to quash the FIR, during the pendency o the same, police have completed tire investigation

¶63

n-1

¶64

¶65

and filed the charge sheet. So charge sheet is the basis now to proceed against the petitioner lA4. The learned Magistrate after going through the records, material available before the Court has taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner/A4 as well for various offences and case was committed to the Sessions Court and it is coming for frarning of the charges. Therefore, when the charge sheet is filed, apparently, there is a prima facie material more than one ways against the petitioner/A4. Simply on the ground that the crime against the petitioner in Mysore was closed, without fi1ing charge sheet, this charge sheet agair-rst the petitioner u,here there is strong evidence cannot be quashed.

¶66

Further, the police Mysore has closed Crime No.55 of 2016 registered against the petitioner/A4. Even if the investigation of police of Mysore was in correct lines, it has to be considered only so far as the FIR registbred in Mysore. It has to be considered that since there was no prima facie material against the petitioner/A4, police Mysore might have closed the case. But, if police CID, Hyderabad^{finds material} against the petitioner/A4 that she has committed^cognizable

¶67

¶68

offence, certair [y investigation of police has to^lte taken into consideration z nd since cognizance was also taken against the petitioner/A4, ,he has to face the tria-I.

¶69

The petit toner/A-4 was charged for t-he offences under Sections 323, : 44,370 (1) (a) (iv) and 374IPC.

¶70

Section ;i23 IPC deals with voluntarily carsing hurt. In the case on t and, it is the statement of the v.ctim and also othei circums .antia-l evidence that the petitioner used to beat the victim in liscriminately. It is also on rr:cord that the petitioner us:d to beat the victim indiscrjminately with whatever arti< le available in the vicinity, sometirrres rn ith a belt.

¶71

The oth :r offence leveled against the petitir>ner is that she has committt d the offence punishable under Section 344 IPC. In order to prove the offence under Sectior. 344 IPC i.e., wrongful con inement for more than ten days, the prosecution is expected t( prove that the petitioner has restrained the victim preventing h :r from proceeding beyond certair circumscribing limits of mor : than ten days.

¶72

¶73

In the case on hand, it is stated by the victim clearly that the petitioner used to run paying guest accommodation and used to wake up the victim at 5.00 a.m. and used to attend all the works including food, doing massage to the petitioner, cleaning the B rooms, cleaning the wash rooms, cleaning the toilets with hands. She never used to give any money and in case if any guests used to give some tips like Rs. 100/- ald Rs.2OO/- even that money also the petitioner used to take by saying that she will put the entire money in the Bank, but she never used to do so. The petitioner used to beat her with a belt and used to cry her, never used to a-llow her to speak to others, petitioner used to tell her friends, who used to come to her house, to beat the victim with cheppal and frnally the petitioner never allowed the victim to go out of the premises and talk to anybody. The facts narrated by the victim in her statement would clearly go to show that the petitioner has confined her wrongfully.

¶74

The other offence alleged against the petitioner is 370⁽¹⁾ (a) (a), IPC, which deais with offence of trafficking, which reads as under:

¶75

"37O. Trafficking of person

¶76

¶77

{r) Who^'r,cr for the purpose of exploitation (2,) Recr lits

¶78

(4) Whe e the offence involves the tralEcking o1' a minor, it shall bc p rnishable with rigorous imprisorunent iol a terrrr which shal not be less than 10 years, but which may extend to imprisonm :nt for life, and shall also be liable to fin,-'"

¶79

27 . In order lo^prove the offence uhder Sectiotr 37() IPC the prosecution IS expected to prove that the peti rioner/A4 has taken the victi n for the purpose of exploitation, rrsing threat or force' or any f )rm of coercion or playing fraud cr de,:eption or abuse of pou,e

¶80

It is sul mitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the victi n has voluntarily came to her hc,use, therefore, there is no of ence committed by her under Section 370 IPC. It is to be noted that as per the statement of the vi,:trm and as per the statemen of the evidence collected by the p,tlice, the victim was taken I r Mysore by saying that she vrould be given Rs.3,OOO/- p:r month. But, admittedly the petitiorrer/A4 has not paid any hing to the victim. Once the petitioner is making the victim to^q ork in her house, she is supposr:d to pay monelr or remunera ion. Whatever explalation she olTsrs, if she is not paying the r^.nruneration and putting restriction on the victim,

¶81

It)

¶82

certainly amount to exploiting the victim and though the petitioner has contended that the victim herself has come voluntarily, there is material to show that she played deception of telling the victim that they would pay money for the services rendered by her.

¶83

Victim has mentioned in her statement that even the tips given to her by the guests were taken by the petitioner. The petitioner has not even opened a bank account in the name of the victim. Except giving food, the petitioner has not given anything. Therefore, there is material to show that deception is played on the victim by the petitioner and made her to work, which certainly attracts the definition of Section 370 IPC. Further, explanation (2) of Section 370 IPC shows that the consent of the victim is immaterial in determination of offence of trafficking.

¶84

There is also prima facie material to show that the petitioner/A4 has compelled the victim to work as a labour against her will and as the petitioner used to beat her^and encouraged her friends to beat the victim^{with cheppal.} Therefore, these circumstances certainly would^{a-lso go to show}

¶85

¶86

that there is a l rima facie material to hold that the rt: is material

¶87

against the pe .itioner/A4 has committed offen<:e punishable

¶88

under Section ! 74 IPC.

¶89

3i. In the res rlt, the crimina-l petition is dismisss<1.

¶90

Miscellan :ous petitions, if any, shall stand c[osec.

,TRUE COPY//

SEI T.KRISHNA KUMAR CEI'UIY REGISTRAR

¶95

l:iECTIOI,I OFFICER

¶96

To,

¶97

1 The Metropoli rn Sessions Judge at L.B. Naqar, Cvbr:ra:ad. 2 The Station H,^,use Officer, Rajendranagar Police Statior-,. (lyberabad, Ranga Reddy )istrict. 3 One CC to Sri A. L. Raju, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CCs to tt -, Public Prosecutor, Uigh Court for the St,)to of Telangana at Hyderabad. [( UTI

¶98

Two CD Copir s 6 One Spare Cr py o br

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2510i 12022

ORDER

!: r Ei.4
a)
.!
$/ 'o rl
gl
ft {ry*
(.
\r
\ -1 ',r:r* t

¶104