Dismissed

Yasam Pocham, Adilabad Dist. v. Sho, Ps Mancherial, Adilabad Dist. and Ano

Telangana HC20 Sept 2022CRLP/5001/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a charge sheet alleging sexual harassment and annoyance under Sections 354-D, 509, and 506 IPC. The Court held that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving the case was false, citing the victim's suicide attempt as prima facie evidence of the complainance.

What the court decided

AI extract

Yasam Pocham, Adilabad Dist. Vs Sho, Ps… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32se ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5001 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

YASAM POCHAM, S/o. Chandraiah, Age: 51 years, Occ:^presently working as Deputy Director, Tribal Welfare, Rl/o. H.No.12-639, Hanuman Nagar, Mancherial, Adilabad District.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, through Station House Officer P.S. Mancherial, Adilabad Dist. represented by Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

2 Durgam Shantha, Wo. Bhagavan, Age: 45 years, Occ: Warden ST Girl Hostel, Near Lord Ayyappa Temple, Rl/o. Arlancherial, Adilabad District.

¶14

-..RESPONDENT/DEFACTO^{_COMPLAINANT.}

¶15

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 charge sheet in C.C. No.162 of 2015, on the file of the Hon'ble ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Macherial, Adilabad District.

¶16

CRL.P.M.P. NO: 5738 OF 2016

¶17

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 the appearance of^the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.162 oI 2015, on the file of the Hon'ble ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mancherial, Adilabad District.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^perusing the^{lvlemorandumof Grounds} of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of^{Sri K.VENUMADHAV,} Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Assistant Public Prosecutor^(TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent^No.2

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICED. NAGARJUN}

¶21

CRIMINAL^{PETITIONNO.5001 0F 2016}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This petition is^{filed seeking quashmentof Charge} sheet in C.C.No.162^{of 2015 on the file of the learned II} Additional Judicial^{First Class Magistrate at Mancherial'} Adilabad District^{cognizanceof which was takenagainst} the petitioner^{for the offence underSections 354-D' 509} and 506 IPC^.

¶24

The facts in brief^{as can been seenfrom the charge} sheet are that^{on 01.01.2013,the duty medicalofficer of} the Area Hospital,^{Mancherialhas sent a requisitionto a} police in respect of^{a medicallegal case on whichpolice} have visited^{the Area Hospital, Mancherialand recorded} the statement^{of the victim/LW'1' The contentsof the} recorded statement^{are that the victimhas been workingas} a Warden, ST Girls^{Hostelfor the last three years andshe} is under the control^{of ATWO Pocham'He used to harass} her for departmental^{issues and demand for sexual favour'} He also used^{to misbehaved'In the year 2OO9' the victim} hasinformedthesametoD.D.APW.Thepetitionerused

¶25

¶26

to harass her on one pretext or the other and used to submit reports against her and on the report of the petitioner the victim was transfer to Bejjur Girls Hostel. Even aJter that the petitioner used to pressurize her. He also developed grudge against her. He used to misbehave her arrd torture her in respect of departmental works. He also stated that if she cooperates for sexual favour he would arrange her promotion. When the victim has informed him that she will reveal everything to all the officers, the petitioner has threatened her with dire consequences. On account of increase of torture and harassment for sexual favour by the petitioner, at 4.OO p.m. on 10.01.2013, the victim has consumed paracetamol expired tablets and other tablets pills and vomited. One C. Laxmi, who was present in the room, shifted her to the Government hospital in 108 ambulance.

¶27

Basing on the statement of the victim a case in Crime No.14 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 509 and 506 IPC was registered and issued FIR and police have completed the investigation and during which they found that the petitioner was harassing her for sexual favour on

¶28

¶29

account of departmental issues and thereby charge^sheetis fited alleging that the petitioner has committed^{the offence} under Sections 354D, 509 and 506^IPC.

¶30

Aggrieved by the same, the quash^{petition is filed on} the following grounds:

¶31

a. The victim has developed^{grudge againstthe} petitioner as the petitioner was appointed^as al^enquiry oflicer against the complaints^{receivedfrom the students} against respondent No.l/victim. His enquiry^{has revealed} that the victim has misappropriated^{the funds and she has} arrogant. On the basis of the enquiry^{report, the de-facto} complainant has transferred on which^{she has developed} grudge and started making false complaint against^the petitioner to the higher authorities.

¶32

b. Subsequent to the registration of the^{FIR against the} petitioner, the relatives of respondent No.2 have trespassed into the house of the petitioner and damaged^{the house} hold articles and therefore, on a complaint^given by^the petitioner a case in Crime No.16 of 2013 was registered against the relatives of respondent No.2 for the offence .---..--\

¶33

*=-J

¶34

¶35

under Sectiotrs 447, 427, 506 read with 34 IPC and charge sheet is filed and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.250 of 2015 and the same is pending.

¶36

C The relatives of respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 and their counsel have approached the petitioner arld his wife and stated that in order to continue friendly relations they do not .ant to continue the crirninal proceedings. Accordingly, in both the cases i.e., the case against the petitioner on the complaint given by the victim and also the case against the relatives of the victim in C.C.No.250 of 2015 were agreed to be compromised by way of fi1ing compromise petitions. Accordingly, on the day of recording the compromise, the petitioner, respondent No.2 and his family members have come. Initially, C.C.No.250 of 2015 was called before the Lok Adalath bench wherein the 110 petitioner has reported objection for compromise. Accordingly, after award was passed, the relatives of respondent No.2 have left the place. However, when C.C.No.162 ol 2015 is called, respondent No.2 and her relatives are not present and therefore, C.C.No.162 of 2Ol5 could not be compromised.

¶37

¶38

d. The contents of charge sheet do not disclose commission of any offence and therefore ultimately prayed the Court to allow the petition and quash the criminal case.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

¶40

Now, the point for determination is whether the charge sheet in C.C.No.162 of 2015 against the petitioner can be quashed?

¶41

According to the victim, the petitioner, who admittedly a superior officer to her, has harassed number of times in the departmental issues and sought for sexua-l favour. The petitioner has not Iiled copy of the statement recorded by the police in the hospital. The petitioner has also not {iled statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, basing on the material available before the Court, orders are being pronounced.

¶42

B. However, the police tn the charge sheet have mentioned as to what the de-facto complainant has stated

¶43

t t

¶44

¶45

to the police in the^{hospital.According tothe said} statement, the de-facto^{complainanthas stated that since} 2OO9 the petitioner^{started harassingher seeking sexual} favours. It is also stated^{that for not accepting the request} of the petitioner^{for sexual favour,a false report was field} by the petitioner and tralsferred^{her to different place' It} is also stated that^{whenthe victim has informed him that} she will reveal eveq,'thing^{to the officers of the department,} the petitioner has threatened^{her with dire consequences'} Therefore, basing on^{the statement given by the victim, it is} clear that the petitioner^{has been harassingthe de-facto} complainant seeking^{sexual favour.}

¶46

Learned counsel for^{the petitionerhas submitted} vehemenfly that, in^{fact, there were complaints against the} de-facto complainant^{in respectof her dutiesand the} petitioner was appointed^{as an enquiryofficerwherein it} was found that the^{respondentNo.2 has misused the funds} and also complaints^{received from the students' Basingon} his report, the^{victim has been transferred to other place} and since then she^{has developed grudge and started filing}

----7

false complaints and this complaint is also one of such complaints.

¶51

The petitioner contents that the de-facto complainant has bore grudge against him as he acted as enquiry officer and enquired into the complaints against the de-facto compiainant. On the other hand, the de-facto complainant complains that the petitioner has been asking for sexual favour. Of the two versions, which one is correct, cannot be decided by this Court.

¶52

In order to quash the charge sheet the petitioner is expected to place material before the Court to the effect that even if the entire charge sheet is accepted to be true, then there should not have any case against the petitioner.

¶53

The petitioner has filed number of documents, like enquiry report and number of other documents of the departmental enquiry etc. The petitioner wanted all the documents filed by him have to be taken into consideration in order to conclude that the complaint field by the de-facto

¶54

complainant is false.

¶55

¶56

This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. cannot conduct mini trial. This Court cannot go through the documents filed by the petitioner and respondent No.2 and conclude r,l,hose version is correct. Further, the de-facto complainant has admittedly consumed pills. According to the medical oflicer statement, the victim has consumer 10 Diazipatn tablets, Am5.tryptillim 5 tablets and Paracetamol 5 tablets. If really the contention of the petitioner 1S accepted that the de-facto complainant has been sending false complaints, there is no reason why she should make an attempt to commit suicide or consume more tablets at least to threaten the petitioner. Without even consuming the tablets, the de-facto complainant could have made a complaint against the petitioner making whatever allegations she want. Therefore, the very fact that she has consumed the tablets would go to show that there is a strong prima facie material against the petitioner.

¶57

Learned counsei for the petitioner has submitted that in the enquiry the de-facto complainant has mentioned that she has consumed pills not against the petitioner. Holvever, as observed above, the enquiry report and other

¶58

¶59

-"'----------

¶60

documents filed in support of the petitioner cannot be basis to conclude that the statement of the de-facto complainant is false in respect of harassment by the petitioner.

¶61

It is alleged that the petitioner, the de-facto complainant and the family members of the de-facto complainant have agreed to settle the disputes and accordingly the case registered against the de-facto complainant's relatives in C.C.No.250 of 2015 was settled in Lok Adalath. However, in C.C.No.162 of 20 15, which is under challenge before this Court in this petition, the defacto complainant has refused to accept for compromise. Therefore, once the de-facto complainant is not interested to get the matter settled, this Court cannot conclude that since the de-facto complainant is not extending cooperation for compromise, the main petition can be quashed.

¶62

Considering the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that C.C.No.162 of 2015 against the petitioner cannot be quashed.

¶63

¶64

In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶65

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶66

SD/.T. SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶67

To,

¶68

//TRUE COPYII ''"'. .- ,r\r - SECTION OCFICER

¶69

The ll Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Mancherial, Adilabad District

¶70

The SHO. Mancherial P.S., Adilabad District

¶71

Two CCs to the Public prosecutor, High Court for the State Of Telangana (our)

¶72

One CC to SRl. K VENU MADHAV,Advocate tOpUCI

¶73

Two CD Copies

¶74

One Spare Copy

EDS

HIGH COURT

DATED:201912022

ORDER

,/. 1 r.,.E STATE
I Jt >Z
23 tiil! 2flu
,
* :1

¶80

CRLP.No.5001 of 2016

¶81

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶82

fu-rn,
tl
ry

Yasam Pocham, Adilabad Dist. v. Sho, Ps Mancherial, Adilabad Dist. and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Yasam Pocham, Adilabad Dist. v. Sho, Ps Mancherial, Adilabad Dist. and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banavath Ravi and 2 others Vs The State Of Telangana

V.Murali Krishna Vs Sri M.Yadi Reddy and State of Telangana, Rep by P.P

Sri Dokuri Ravinder Reddy, Vs Sri Manda Yadi Reddy

Kunam Raghava Reddy, Jubille Hills., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Smt. Bittu Sunitha Rani, Vs The State of Telangana

Prabhakar Reddy Pannala Vs The State of Telangana and Another