Allowed

Smt.K.Parimala v. the State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC26 Jul 2022CRLP/1955/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Telangana High Court quashed a criminal complaint against a petitioner and her acquittal in a prior case. The court held that the trial court failed to record findings of intentional false evidence and lacked sufficient grounds for a defamation charge, rendering the proceeding an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Complaint No. 1654 of 2012 pending against the petitioner was quashed.

Smt.K.Parimala Vs the State of Telangana and Another — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1955 OF 2016

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt. K. Parimala, Wio. P.C.Ullas, aged^{44 years, Occ:Assistant Divisional} Engineer^(Electrical) APTRANSCO,^{Vidyut Soudha,Hyderabad,R/o.} Hyderabad.

¶8

...PETIIONER/ACCUSED No.1 in CC 165412012

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, through Public Prosecutor,^{HighCourt at Hyderabad.}

¶11

A.Vivekanand, S/o. A.Narsing Rao, aged 52^{years, Occ:SE, AP TRANSCO,} Rl/o. H.No.9-1-35, Hasmathpet, Old Bownpally,^{Secunderabad- 500 009.}

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that^{in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of CriminalPetition,the High Courtmaybe} pleased to quash the CC.No.165 4 of 2012 on the file of the^{LearnedXIV Addl.} Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal^{Courtsat Nampally, Hyderabadand to} pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deemed^fit.

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 OF 20'16^(CRLPMP. NO: 1886 F 2016

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of^{Criminal Petition, the HighCourtmaybe} pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of^{the petitioner in} CC.No.1654 of 2012 on the file of^{the LearnedXIV Addl. ChiefMetropolitan} Magistrate, City Criminal Courts at^{Nampally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the} main Crl.P. and^pass such other order or^{orders as this Hon'ble Courtmay} deemed fit.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri J. Sudheer, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri S. Shiva Shankar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1955 OF 2016

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This petition is field by the accused seeking quashment of C.C.No.1654 of 2Ol2 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate, City Criminal Courts at Nampa1ly, Hyderabad which is registeed against her for the offence under Section 193 and 5O0 IPC

¶22

The facts in brief as per the charge sheet are as under:

¶23

The petitioner and the de-facto complainant are working in the A.P. Transmission Corporation. The delacto complainant was working as Divisiona-l Engineer, whereas the petitioner was working as Assistant Divisional Engineer (Electrical). The petitioner telephoned to the defacto complainant on 29.O5.2OO9 and informed him that she wanted leave as she went to Delhi. However, the defacto complainant informed her that she should not leave the headquarters without obtaining written permission and explained the rule position on which the petitioner stated

¶24

¶25

to have become wild and not only threatened the de_facto complainant that she will report to the maragement about the harassment, but also filed a complaint to the Joint Managing Director, Vigilance Cell, A.p. Transco and also to the SHO, Humuyan Nagar police Station.

¶26

Police have registered a complaint against the de_ facto complainant under Section SO9 IpC, after completion of investigation, liled the charge sheet alleging that the de_ facto complainant has committed the offence punishable under Section 509 IpC and the same is taken on lile as C.C.No.35B of 201O.

¶27

The de-facto complainant has filed a discharge petition in Crl.p.No.36O6 of 2010, but the same was dismissed. The de_facto complainant has filed quash petition before tJle High court in crr.p.No.11335 of 2010 and the said petition was arso dismissed. The de-facto complainant has also filed Criminal Revision petition against the dismissal of the discharge petition before the learned I MSJ, City Criminat Court-s 4t Nampally and the same was also dismissed. Finally, the trial was completed

¶28

-l

¶29

and the de-facto complainant found not guilty and was acquitted of the charge against him under Section 509 IPC.

¶30

During the pendency of the criminal case against the de-facto complainant, the promotion of the de-facto complainant was stopped on account of pendency of the criminai case fiied by the petitioner herein. The de-facto complainant has challenged the action of the department for not giving promotion vide W.P.No.2797 of 2Ol1 and as per the directions of the Court, the de-facto complainant was given promotion.

¶31

Subsequent to the acquittal of the de-facto 'complainant, Smt. K. Prasalna Lakshmi CGM/HRD of AP Transco, head of the personal department has addressed a letter dated 31.03.2010 stating that the promotion of the de-facto complainant was stopped due to the pendency of the criminal case.

¶32

One Shoba Rani, DS/personal of AP Transco, was heading the personal wing. On 31.03.2010 the said Shoba Rani and B Ganesh Rao, Assistant Secretar5r, Head of

¶33

¶34

Personal Wing, has issued a memo, dated 31.03.2010 stating that the de-facto complainant was convicted in criminal Court and involved in moral turpitude, hence, not entitled for promotion. One prem Kumar, pO/panel Technical of A.P. Transco has played key role in drafting the said memo. One J. Shalker DE/ACI A.p. Transco has voluntarily addressed letter dated Oa.j,2.2OOg against the de-facto complainant.

¶35

After the de-facto complainant was acquitted in the criminal case filed by the petitioner for the offence under Section 509 IPC and after memo was issued stating that the de-facto complainant was convicted in a crimina_l case and found in moral turpitude, the de-facto complainant has filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate against the petitioner and S more persons, namely, Prasanna Lakshmi, Shoba Rani, Ganesh Rao, prem Kumar and Shanker alleging that atl of them committed offences punishable under Sections 5OO, 16Z, 193 r/w. lO9, 34, 120b, 511 rPC.

¶36

¶37

After filing of the private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and the sworn statements of the de-facto complainalt and two more witnesses, who were examined as PWs.1 to 3, the learned Magistrate has passed cognizance order, which runs as under:

¶38

"2. Sworn statements of PW. 1 to PW.3 recorded by this Court. The statement discloses that as per the memo dated 31.03.2010 which is being kept in the notice board the complainant was humiliated and defamed by the A2 to A6. The letter addressed to complainant by HRD TrgIDS(P)AS(S)/ PO (Panels-Techl) l/147 /2OO9 dated 31.03.2010. The said letter is also Iiled before this Court. The letter dated 31.03.20 i0 prima facie discloses t]-at it is a ofiicial communication comes within the definition of the Government Department. So the sanction under 197 Cr.P.C., is required before launching the criminal prosecution by the complainant against his subordinates as they being public servants.

¶39

On perusal of the sworn statement of the complainant coupled with the complaint allegations discloses prima facie case for the offences u/s. 5OO, 193 IPC against (A1) Smt. K. Parimala. Therefore, the case is taken cognizance against the (A1) Smt. K.Parimala. Issue SS to (41) Smt. K. Parima-la through Court and RPAD.

¶40

4- The case was not taken cogrrizance against the other accused due to want of sanction proceedings u/s. 197 Cr.P.C., and it dismissed."

¶41

Though the de-facto complainant has filed a case against 6 persons, the trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner/A 1 only and the complainant has not taken cognizance against the rest of the accused i.e.,

¶42

¶43

¶44

42 to A6. The de-facto complainant has not disputed the orders of the learned trial Court in not taking cognizance against A2 to 4,6, thereby those orders have become final. Aggrieved by taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 5OO and 193 IPC, the present petition 1s filed by A1 to quash the same.

¶45

It is the contention of the de-facto complainant that the accused has committed offence punishable under Sections 193 and 500 IPC. In order to prove that the petitioner has committed offence punishable under Section 193 IPC, the de-facto complainant is expected to a-llege and prove that the petitioner/Al has intentionally gave false evidence in the judicial proceedings. According to the defacto complainant, the petitioner has flled a false case against him in C.C.No. 12 of 2Ol1 under Section 509 IPC and thereby she is liable for prosecution. The de-facto complainant has mentioned about certain observations in the judgment and quoted certain parts of the evidence of the witnesses C.C.No. 12 of ll. On perusal of the judgment, it is clear that the trial Court has not observed

¶46

¶47

that the petitioner/A t has given false statement in C.C.No. 12 of 2Oll. The de-facto complainant has faiied to mention as to which part of evidence given by the petitioner was false.

¶48

No Iinding recorded by the trial Court that the petitioner/Al has given false evidence. In order to fasten the liability under Section 193 IPC, it is required to be proved that the petitioner has given not only false evidence, but such false evidence should have been^given intentionally. The element of intention is precondition for fastening the liability^'for the offence under Section 193 IPC. In entire complaint the de-facto complainant has not stated that the petitioner has given false evidence "intentionall5r". Making allegation by the de-facto complainant that the petitioner has given false evidence intentionally will not serve the purpose.

¶49

The parts of the^judgment extracted by the de-facto complainant would go to show that the petitioner has deposed in C.C.No.12 of 2}ll that the de-facto complainant abused her in vulgar language. The Court

¶50

¶51

¶52

has observed in the judgment that since the petitioner has not stated actual words uttered by the de_facto complainant Court cannot come to the conclusion whether those words would amount to insulting the modesty of PW. 1. The Court has observed that pW. t has failed to prove that the de-facto complainant has uttered the words with an intention to insult the modest5r of the rvoman. The basic reason for acquitting the de-facto complainant is that the petitioner has not mentioned the words allegedly uttered by the de-facto complainant. Therefore, when she has not mentioned any utterances, the contention of the de-facto complainant in this complaint that the petitioner has given false evidence, cannot be accepted.

¶53

The trial Court has recorded fhe sworn statement of the de-facto complainant. The contents of the swom statement are very much relevant. Basing on the said sworn statement, the trial Court considers whether there is aly prima facie material against the accused. In the case on hand, the first part of the sworn statement is in respect of the petitioner giving a complaint to the police, who

¶54

¶55

registered a case. On careful perusal of this part of the sworn statement, the de-facto complainant did not mention that the petitioner has given false evidence in C.C. No.358 of 2010 intentionally. Therefore, neither in the complaint nor in the sworn statement, there is a mention that the petitioner herein has given false evidence in the said C.C. Therefore, the offence under Section 193 IPC cannot be fastened on the petitioner. Therefore, on this count the case against the petitioner will not sustain for the oflence under Section 193 IPC.

¶56

In respect of the offence under Section 500 IPC alleged against the petitioner is concerned, the deiinition for defamation is mentioned under Section 499 IPC.

¶57

"499. Defamation.-Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

¶58

Explanation 1 .-It may amount to defarnation to irnpute alything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, ald is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his farnily or other near relatives.

¶59

Explanation 2.-It may arnount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an associatiolor collection of persons as such.

¶60

¶61

Explartot[on 3.-An imputation in the form o[ an altcrnative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation -

¶62

Explanation 4.-No imputation is said to harm a person,s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indircctly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lorvers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his ca1ling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

¶63

Illustrations

¶64

{al^{A says-"Z is arr honest} man; he never stole B,s watch"; intending to cause ,it to be believed that Z did steal B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fa1l within one of ttre exceptions.

¶65

{b)^{A isasked who} stole B's watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation unless it fall within one of the exceptions.

¶66

lq|^{A drawsa pictrlre of Z} running away with B's watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fail within one of the exceptions."

¶67

L7. On going through the entire complaint and more

¶68

particularly the sworn statement of the petitioner, it is clear that the allegation against the petitioner so far as Section 500 IPC is concerned, that the petitioner and other accused Nos. 2 to 6 have conspired and as per the conspiracy, A3 to A5 have pasted a memo in the notice board that the de-facto complainant was found guilty and convicted and also involved in a case of moral turpitude.

¶69

¶70

in fact, on careful perusal of the contents of the complaint closely, it is clear that the allegations against the petitioner are only in respect of giving fa-lse evidence in the criminal case filed by her and as discussed above, this Court has already found that there is no substance in the allegations pertaining to Section 193 IPC in respect of giving false evidence by the petitioner.

¶71

The issue with regard to defamation is alleged only on account of the memo issued by A3 to A5 and also letters addressed by ,{2 and 4,6, and even according to the defacto complainant, tho petitioner is not party to all the documents. The only link connecting the petitioner and other accused so far as offences under Section 5OO IPC is Section 1208 IPC and other offences. However, the tria-l Court while taking cognizance has taken the offences under Sections 193 and 5OO IPC against the petitioner only and refused to take cognizance against other accused. Since cognizance was not taken against Section 12OB IPC, it cannot be said that accused has conspired witll other accused and committed the offence punishable under

¶72

¶73

-a-

¶74

Section 12OB IPC. The allegation of defamation is not against the petitioner but they are A2 to .A6. As there are no ingredients of Section 500 IpC, the trial Court should not have taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Section 500 IPC. When there are no allegations bringing the petitioner to the fold of Section 500 IPC, the de-facto complainant cannot allege that the petitioner has committed offence under Section 500 IpC.

¶75

The second part of the sworn statement speaks about the defamation. According to the de-facto complainant, in the sworn statement,, A,2 and 4.6 have given a memo that the de-facto complainant was convicted in moral turpitude without waiting for the judgment copy, thereby the de_facto complainant was defamed and he also stated that A6 has supported A1. Therefore, the issue in respect of defamation is only against le to A6. He did not speak anything about the petitioner, who is A1. Even otherwise, as aiready observed, the trial Court has declined to take cognizance against A2 to ,4'6. Therefore, when the complaint under Section 500 IpC is only against A2 to A6,

¶76

t-)

¶77

the question of continuation of the^proceedings against^the petitioner/A1 against whom there are no allegations under Section 500 IPC amounts to abusing of the^{process of law.}

¶78

Therefore, considering the discussion made^above and on going through the contents of the complaint,^sworn statement of the de-facto complainant and other^two witnesses, there is no prima facie case at all to show that the petitioner has committed offences punishable^under Sections 193 and 500 IPC. Therefore, C.C.No.No.1654 of 2012 pending against the petitioner is liable to^{be quashed}

¶79

In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and^the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No. 1654 of 2Ol2 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts at Nampally, Hyderabad are^hereby quashed.

¶80

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, sha-11 stand closed.

¶81

SD/.P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// a/

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1. The XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Court^at Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶87

One bCio Sri J. Sudheer,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶88

One CC to Sri S. Siva Shanker,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶89

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{HighCourt for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶90

Two CD Copies

¶91

One Spare Copy obr ;V

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2610712022

ORDER

i-' STAfI: (1
1$
, ri:
11 0t1 ?$[l
':
.,

¶96

CRLP.No.1955 of 2016

¶97

ALLOWING THE CRL.P w

Smt.K.Parimala v. the State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.K.Parimala v. the State of Telangana and Another

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

Rao Rajesh Vs the State of Telangana

Adike Purushottam Vs Jitender Mohite and Another

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

Sri.Praveen Cherukumalli Vs The State of Telangana

Vimpatu Sai Harshith Goud Vs State of Telangana

Mr.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatro, Vs The State of Telangana