Dismissed

Rao Rajesh v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Jul 2022CRLP/8801/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash the charge sheet against petitioners for conspiracy to murder. The High Court held that conspiracy is an independent offence and dismissed the petition, directing the trial court to determine the allegations based on evidence.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet in C.C. No. 556 of 2017 was not quashed.

Rao Rajesh Vs the State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8801 OF 2018

¶6

Between:

¶7

Rao Rajesh, S/o Ram Rao, aged 37 years, Occ: Agriculture Rl/o Yerragunta, Khammam District

¶8

Polakampalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o Kesava Rao, aged 47 years, Occ: Contractor, Rl/o Yerragunta, Khamma m District

¶9

Changanti Venkata Ramana, Sio Ram Das, aged 43 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o Raju Pet, Krishna District.

¶10

Pasupleti Rama Krishna, S/o Buchaiah, aged 37 years, Occ: Driver, Rl/o Tririviri. Krishna District.

¶11

Kadlya-la Ramaanajaneyulu, S/o Chinna Raghavaiah, aged 57 years, Occ: Agricutlure, Rl/o Sobhanapuram, Agiripalli Mandal, Krishna District.

¶12

Chinthal Nageswara Rao @ Bulet Nageswara Rao, S/o Rambabu, aged 54 years, Occ: Fruit Business, Rl/o Kedaraeshwar Raopet, Krisahna District

¶13

...PETITIONERYACGUSED 1 to 6

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, through Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature, at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana and the State of AP

¶16

...RESPONDENT

¶17

Vemula Srinivsa Rao, S/o Venkateshwar Rao, aged 44^years, Occ: Agriculture, FUo Erragunta, Chandrugonda Mandal, Krishna District.

¶18

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High^Courtmay be pleased to call for the records relating to the CC^{No. 556 of 2017 on the file of} the lAddl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem,^{and quashthe sameand} to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble^{Court may deem fit.}

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2018

¶21

Petition under S:ction 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in ltt: crrcumstances stated in the Memoran lum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, llr: High Court^may be^pleased to stay all f^{,rther proceedings} in CC No.556^r>t 201',' on the file of the I Addl. Judicial First⁽ ;lass Magistrate, Kothagudem,^{pendir r;} disposal of the above Crl.P. and to^p. ss such other order or orders as thrs l-cn'ble Court may deem fit.

¶22

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2018

¶23

Petition under I ection 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in tl-re circumstances stated in the Memorar Jum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the Hiqh Court may be pleased to extend lre interim order Crl.P.No.B801 of 2t)18 dated 21-08-2018 pending disposal of tl e above criminal petition and pass s rch other order or orders as this Hon'ble )ourt may deem fit.

¶24

l.A. NO: I OF 2019

¶25

Petition under^I ;ection 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in ['e circumstances stated in the Memorar dum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, tle. High Court may be pleased to extend he interim order Cd.P.No.BB01 of 201i] dabd 2110812018 pending disposal of t re above criminal petition and pass strc h other order or orders as this Hon'ble lourt deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and pass such other o der or orders as this Hon'ble Court deern fit.

¶26

This Petition c rming on for hearing, upon perusing; tlre Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal F etition and upon hearing the argumr:nts cf Sri Ch. Venkat Raman, Advocate for he Petitioner and the Assistant Public f)rosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respond :nt No.1 and none appeared for the Re;pondent No.2.

¶27

The Court made the f rllowing: ORDER

¶28

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN

¶29

CRIMINAL PETITION No.88O1 oF 2()18

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The petitioners were shown as A1 to A6 in C.C.No.556 of 2Ol7 on the file of I Addi., Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem have filed this petition to quash the charge sheet, which is taken cognizance against them for the offence punishable under Section 12O(B) r/w 34 IPC.

¶32

The facts in brief are as under:

¶33

The de-facto complainant has filed a complaint before the police stating that he came to know that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2/Al and A2 have given Rs.l lakh to the persons at Tiruvuru, at Vijayawada to kill him ald that Polakampalli Srinivasa Rao also tried to kill him.

¶34

On a complaint given by the de-facto complainant a case in Crime No. 6 of 2014 for the offence under Section 12O(B) IPC has been registered and during the course of investigation, police have recorded the statements of the de-facto complainant, visited the scene of offence, recorded the statements of LWs.2 and 5 to 8 and drafted the scene of offence

¶35

¶36

panchanaina, c^'irne details form in the preserLce r,rf rnediators LWs.9 ancl 10.

¶37

On 03.02.2014 at 1.00 p.m., A1 and A2 wer,: arrested and in the presence of mediators they have confessed :ilat they have conspired to :ill the de-facto complainant o : aocount of previous grudg:s and political rivalry. On 2,O.L'2.207'.2, A1 and A2 went to /enugopal Dhaba of Tiruvur rrnd met one Venkatramana who has agreed to kill t1e de-facto complainant. Ihey have taken Venkatramana -r their viilage on 28.12.2012 and shown the de-facto compJe.irLant and his photograph wz s also given. Ai and A2 gave Rrr . 12il<h to the said Venkatrar 1arra. After one month, he failed to execute the work ald soug ht for two more months time. Aftr:r t"vo months he has inform:d that he failed to kill the de-factc, complainant and returned Rs.80,OOO/-. Later, A1 and A2 went to Somanapurarr village of Agripalli Mandal of Klishna District and met one )lamanjaleyulu, who was doing m:r,ngo business, who has agr:ed to kill the de-facto complairant and his photograph r.t, rs given to him along with Rs.1 itl<h. The said person agree( to kill within three months, but ultimately he

¶38

¶39

a-lso failed and subsequently, he has returned Rs.l lakh to the

¶40

accused.

¶41

After completion of investigation, charge sheet is Iiled against the petitioners/Al to A6 for the offence under Section 120(8) read with 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed alleging that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners, but in their 161 statements there is no mention.

¶42

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶43

Now, the point for determination is whether the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.556 of 2017 can be quashed?

¶44

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B IPC cannot be charged independently unless it is followed by other offence.

¶45

Section 12OA IPC runs as under:

¶46

"L2OA. Definition of criminal^{conspiracy.-- When two or} more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,

¶47

(1) an illegal act, or

¶48

¶49

(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal mearts, such an agreement i , clesigrrated a criminal conspiracy:

¶50

Provi [ed that no agreement except an agr^(x, ment to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal < r: nsJ>iracy unless som, act besides the agreement is done by or,c or more parties to sr c}-r agreement in pursualce thereof.

¶51

Explanatton It is immaterial whether the illegal :u:t is the ultimate oil ect of such agreement, or is merely in<:idental to that object.

¶52

lO. Section 1 |0B is a punishment for an offen<:r.: ol criminal conspiracy. h order to prove the criminal r:o espiracy, the petitioners are )xpected to prove that two or more persons must agree to do ar illegal or an act which is not l:gal by illegal means In the case on hand, as per the ch arge r;heet, A1 and A2 have appro€ ched other accused/A3 to A6 one rrIter the other and gave Rs.1 akh to kill the de-facto complainrlr:,t. However, all of them har e returned their money to Al arc .t\2 on failure to execute the^, ame.

¶53

I 1. The allel ations leveled against tJle accttsed are very serious in natr re. The petitioners are totally denling the alleged offence. There ore, the questions arise whether A L and A'2 have conspired with other accused one after other an<l whether they have agrecd to kil1 the de-facto complainant by'r-rrl:ing; money of

¶54

)

¶55

Rs.l lakh. According to the prosecution, the accused have confessed that they have conspired to kill the de-facto complainant. Basing on the circumstances placed before the Courts, including the statement of witnesses, the trial Court will have to give a finding whether an offence of criminal conspiracy is committed to kill the de-facto complainant.

¶56

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the offence under Section 1208 IPC cannot be charged alone without there being any allegation that the accused has committed other offences. The dehnition of Section 120-A IPC clearly speaks ttrat when more tharr two persons agree to do arr illegal act and also does an act besides agreement, it amounts to offence punishable under Section 120-8 IPC. In the case on hand, Al and A2 have made agreement with A3 to A6 individually to kill the de-facto complainant by paying Rs.l lakh. However, they could not execute the same and returned the money. Therefore, when there are ingredients of Section 120-A IPC are proved, the offence under Section 120-8 IPC can be charged independently without aid of any other offence. Sectiqn 12OA itself is an independent offence and it does not

ffs

-'---

require any oth )r offence to be fastened along'"r,ith Section 120B IPC. There i i no ban' to charge offence under lir:ction 120-8 IPC independer tly wherever there are ingredients to prove the offence.

¶61

The Madt ya Pradesh High Court while dealing lr.ith a case in Mithlesh S. Larma vs. The State of Madhya P'radeshr has held as under:

¶62

"Las .11', it was contended that Section l2o-B of IPC cannot be n independent offence. In this regar<I, i: is apposite to state thr observation made by Hon'ble Supremt, -I,urt in the case of^'hc State of Andhra Pradesh v. C: eemalapati Ganeswari Rao and another, reported in AIR 19(;3 SiO 1850:

¶63

'39. We shall f-rrst deal with the third poinl. f'he offence of conspir icy is an entirely independent offence rurd though other offer ccs are committed in pursuance of tht: <:onspiracy the tiabilit ' of the conspirators for the conspirac5.' ir.self cannot disappear.

¶64

The pro: ecution has placed before the Oourt the clear evidence in th : form of statements of the victim and witnesses under Sectior. 161 Cr.P.C., and confessional statement of witnesses, wh r have stated about conspiracy ol A1 with other accused. Wh:n complex factual serious issues, are alleged by the prosecuti,^,n and denied by the accused, it is for the trial

¶65

lCriminal Revision I. ).5 5l of 2016. dt. 24.05.2011

¶66

¶67

Court to look into them by framing appropriate charges and

¶68

give a finding.

¶69

Taking into consideration the submissions of both sides and the authority cited above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have not made out a case to quash the

¶70

proceedings in C.C.No.556 of 2Ol7 against them.

¶71