Dismissed

M.Venkataiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Sept 2022CRLP/218/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash proceedings regarding bonded labour exploitation of Chenchu SC/ST families. The court found no merit in the plea that arrest pending for three years justified quashing, directing completion of investigation within two months without arresting the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Investigation directed to be completed within two months; petitioner not to be arrested until final report is filed.

M.Venkataiah Vs The State of Telangana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 218 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

M.Venkataiah, S/o. M.Ramulu, aged about 55^{years, Occ.Labour Contractor,R/o-} Ramajipalli Village, Balmuru Mandal, Mahabubnagar^{District,Telangqqlslaler} _ _

¶8

...PETITIONERYACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Represented by^{its Public Prosecutor, High Court for} the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad.^{Police StationKaleshwaram,} Bhupalpally District.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Mahadevpur Mandal, Bhupalpally^District.

¶12

"..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the [vlemorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be} pleased to quash the FIR No.85 of 2019 registered in Kaleswaram Police Station and pending on the file of Hon'ble^{ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, at} Godavarikhani in the interest of^justice.

¶13

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition, the HighCourt may be} pleased to stay all further proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in^{FIR No.85} oI 2019 registered in Kaleswaram Police Station^{and pending on the file of Hon'ble} ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Godavarikhani,^{in the interest of} Justice.

¶15

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusingthe Memorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon^{hearing the arguments of Sri S. Keshava} Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and^{the PublicProsecutor on behalf of the} Respondent No.1 and none appeared^{for the RespondentNo.2}

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

HONBLE DT, JI]STICE CIIILLAKUR SL]MALATHA

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.21B ol 202'2 ORDER:

¶19

Heard the submission of Sri S.Keshava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor who is representing respondent No.1. 2. Seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are pending against him in Crime No.g5 of 20 19 of Kaleshwaram Police Station, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District, the present Criminal petition is filed.

¶20

Making his subr4ission, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is Madamsett5r Venkataiah and indeed, the real offender is Gani Venkataiah. However, the father,s name of both of them is Ramulu and Police foisted a false case against the petitioner being confused with the name and thus, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶21

Per contra, the submission of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is that as per the investigation, the petitioner i.e., Madamsetty Venkataiah and the other persolt i.e., Gani Venkataiah have jointly committed

¶22

¶23

l)t'.( SL, J ('tlPNo.)l8 t)J 2022

¶24

offences punishable undcr the^{provisions of the h-rdian} Penal Code and also under the^{provisions olthe} Scheduled Castes and the^{ScheduledTribes (Prevention} of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and^{the Bonded LabourSystem} (Abolition) Act, 1976.

¶25

The matrix of the^{prosecution case, as couldbe} perceived through the material^{available on record, is} that a rescue team^{was formed comprisingthe Police of} Mahadevpur Police Station,^{Assistant Labour Officer,} Tahsidar, CDPO, members^{of Civil society organizations,} basing on the directitrns^{of the Revenue Divisiona-l Officer,} Bhupalpally. All of them^{reached the work site of C5} Company which is^{locatedin the outskirts of Annaram} Village, Mahadevpur Mandal.^{On enquiry,the labourers} present there informed the^{team about the problems} faced by them. They^{reportedthat the petitioner initially} gave an advance ranging^{fromRs.25'O0O/-to} Rs.6O,OO0/-^per family^{and the said amount was given} I Y. years ago with a^{promise to pay suitablewages and} food, to provide all necessary^{facilities like} accommodation,^etc., but^{he failed to provide the same. It}

¶26

¶27

Ih.(..st.. .I Crll'No.21B ol )(t22

¶28

is also reported that the petitioner induced, by making false promises, the 21 families ol Chenchu tribe and Scheduled Caste to work and the workers include six children. It was also reported that without paying wages, they were made to work from 7 atn to 7 pm. Basing on those facts, Police registered a case and started investigation.

¶29

As per the submission of learned Assistant public Prosecutor, the case is still under investigation. The case was registered in the month of July, 20 1 9. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as thr: learned Assistant Public prosecutor, the petitioner is not arrested yet. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is threat of arrest of the petitioner and Police are after the petitioner.

¶30

7 . No clarity is given as to why the investigation is kept pending for more than three years. In case, the investigating agency has got sufficient grounds to effect arrest, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner would have been arrested by now. However, no arrest is effected for a long period of

¶31

¶32

l)r.(-SL. J CrlPNo.2lB^{of 2022}

¶33

three^{years from the date of registration of the case'} Admittedly,^{the investigating agencyis not at liberty to} effect arrest^{of any person withoutsufficient and valid} grounds. However,^{the proceedings cannotbe quashed} basing on the^{ground that arrest of the petitioner is not} effected till^{now. Ftlrther more, though the learned} counsel for^{the petitionerbroughtto the noticeof this} Court the^{contents of164 Cr'P'C'statement thatwas} given by Gani^{Venkataiah, as the submission of the} learned Assistant^{PublicProsecutoristhat the said} person is also^{arrayedas accused, the contents of the} said Statement^{cannotbe taken into considerationso as} to quash the^{proceedings against the petitioner' No other} merits are^{found to quash the proceedings'Therefore'} this Court is^{of the view that this Criminal Petition' which} is filed for^{quash of proceedings,lacksmerits'}

¶34

Resultantly,^{the Criminal Petition isdismissed'} However, the^{Station House Officer, KaleshwaramPolice} Station/ Investigating^{Officer is directed to completethe} investigation^{within a periodof two monthsand file final} report before^{the Court concerned' As nothingis stated}

¶35

¶36

Dr.CSl-, J CrU'No.21n of 2022

¶37

b-r, the li'el rlrL'd Assistant Public Prosecutor regardir-rg the requirenrent of arrest of the petitioner, the investigating agency is directed not to apprehend the petitioner till filing of fi nal report. On liling of linal report, the Court concerne d is at liberty to take steps for securing the presence cl the petitioner/ accused if required.

¶38

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed

¶39

SD/.M.MANJULA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Il Additicnal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Godavarikhani, Bhupalpally District. 2. The Station House Officer, Kaleshwaram Police Station, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District. 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana (OtJT) 4. One CC to SRl. S. KESHAVA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies 6. One Spare Copy

bs .v

HIGH COUR

DATED:2310912022

ORDER

1X
t

CRLP.No.21ll of 2022

DISMISS INC ]'HI-- C]{L. PETITION.

¶53

n"N
IE lo L,/ L,/

M.Venkataiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Venkataiah 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. v. Vijayasaradhi Vs The State of Telangana

Kalakuntla Jaipal Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Palle Suguna Vs The State of Telangana

Nethi Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Motam Raghu Vs State of Telangana of Telangana

A R Raja Sekhar Vs The State of Telangana and Another