Allowed

Khazi Ghouse v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Nov 2022CRLRC/357/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal revision, the High Court set aside the Additional Judicial Magistrate's order refusing to refer a private complaint to police. The Court held the Magistrate failed to peruse material showing the petitioner approached the Superintendent of Police regarding allegations under the Inams Abolition Act.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Additional Judicial Magistrate refusing to refer the complaint to police was set aside. A direction was issued to the Magistrate to hear the matter afresh and pass a reasoned

Khazi Ghouse Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 357 OF 2021

¶6

Crl.Revision Case Under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 08-04-2021 in C.F.R. No. 1178 ol 2020 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class , Gadwal .

¶7

Between:

¶8

Khazi Ghouse, S/o Khazi Tajudiun, Aged. 39 yrs, R/o H.No.2-3-85/1, Buradapet, Gadwal-509125, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶9

.. REVISION PETITIONER/ Complainant

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor', High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana .. Respondent No. 1

¶12

M. Shiva Kumar, S/o Not Known, Aged. Major, Occ. Deputy Tahsildar. Undavelli, (Employee lD.1752221), R/o. H.No. 6-2-51/2, Momin Street, Gadwal. Respondent No. 2 /A-1

¶13

B Eedanna, S/o B.lyyanna, Aged. Major, Occ, Village Revenue Officer, Manoupad Mandal Office, (Employee lD. 1749791), R/o. H.No 3-62, B.C Colony,Paipadu, Village of Vaddepally Mandal, Jogulamba District Respondent No. 3 / A- 2

¶14

4, Karuna Kumar, S/o Not Known, Aged. Major, Occ. Retd Deputy Tahsildar, (Employee lD. 1724568), R/o. H.No. 1-9-11012, Weavers Colony, Besides Shanthi Building line, Gadwal Town. .. Respondent No. 4 / A-3

¶15

B. Biksha, S/o Not Known, Aged. Major, Occ. Retd Joint Collector, (Employee lD. 1924951), Nizamabad, R/o Plot No.202, Laxminagar Colony, Kothapeta, L.N.Nagar, Hyderabad. .. Respondent No. 5 / A-4

¶16

K. Venkateswarlu, S/o. Not Known, Aged. Major, Occ.Senior Asst, R/o H.No.1-4-33lC4, Near Ayyappa Temple, (Employee lD.1753222), Gadwal Mandal and Dist. .. Respondent No. 6 / A-5

¶17

M.A. Aziz, Slo. Not Known, Aged. Major, Occ. Retd Adminstratron Officer, (Employee 1D.1957368), R/o H.No.3-3-36, Quthubshah Road, Nalgonda. .. Respondent No.7/A-6

¶18

B. Patnam Ramulamma, W o. Thimmappa, Aged. Major, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H.No. 1-3-6213H, Near SBl, Gadwal. .. Respondent No. B / A-7

¶19

Patnam Padmavathamma, Wo P.Venkatramulu, Aged. Major, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H No 1-3-621112, Sunkulamma Mettu, Gadwal i,Tr;?i:[,

¶20

P.Venkatnarsiah, S/o Narsappa, Aged. Major, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H.No. 4- B3,East Dudharpally village, Gadwal {r/andal and Dist. Respondent No. 10

¶21

P.Seshadri, S/o Narsappa, Aged. N4ajor, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H.No. 3-18170,Pragathi nagar, Ramanthapur, Ranga Reddy Dist. O"???X:t *"

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶23

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the o.der of the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gadwal in C.F.R No.1178 of 202a, dated 08th day of April, 2021 in dismissing the private complaint filed by the Revision Petitioner against the Respondents No.2 to 1-1 pending disposal of the Criminal revision Case

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2,3,4,6: SRI N.M. KRISHNAIAH

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8 to 11 : SRI J. PRABHAKAR

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 : NONE APPEARED

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.357 of 2021 ORDER

¶31

Challenge in this Revision Case is the order that is rendered b1, the Court of Additionai Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal in C.F.R.No.1178 of 2020, dated oB.1 .2021.

¶32

Heard the submission of learned counsel for the revlslon petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.8 to 11.

¶33

Upon hearing the learned counsels and upon perusal of the material available on record, what could be perceived is that the petitioner filed a private complaint against respondent Nos.2 to 11 alleging that they committed offences punishable under Sections 42O, 464 and 47 I R/w 120(8) IPC. A request was made to refer the matter to the Station House Officer, Gadwal Tor,l n Police Station for investigation. However, the Court beiow through

¶34

Dr.CSL..l ( rl t? L.,\to 3 5' o/ 2a2 l

¶35

)

¶36

the impugn,:d orcier expressed its opinion that the request of the petitioner cannot be accepted

¶37

\laking his submission, learnecl counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court belor,r' on the sole ground thal thc mandaton. requirement Llnder Section 154 (1) and (3) Cr.P.C is not cornplied u.ith, has not referred the compiaint to Police concerned for investigation.

¶38

I-earned counsel lor the petitioner states that the petitiorrer approached the Station House Officer concerned and gave a compiaint. But, the Station House Officer did not recei\re thc same by informing that an officer above the rank of Sub h-rspector of Police has to look into the case as the allegations are under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act, 1955. Learned coLrnsel submits that thereafter, the petitioner approached the office of Superinten dent of Police and gave a complaint and the Superintendent ol Police forwarded the same to the Station House Officer, Gadwal Police Station. But, no action was ta-ken and hence, the petitioner filed a private .complaint. Therefore, the petitioner has complied with all the required

¶39

DT.CSL,J Crl. R.C.No.3 57 oJ 202l

¶40

¶41

formalities and thus, the private complaint ought to have bcen referred bv the Court belorv to Police.

¶42

On the other hand, making his submission, learned counsel for respondent Nos.B to 11 states that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner initially approached the Station House Officer concerned and thereafter, the Superintendent of Police concerned. In reply to the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner states that ample materia1 was produced before the Court belou,to show that the petitioner approached the office of Superintendent of Police and gave complaint.

¶43

7 - Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the annexures to the sworn statement themselves reveals that a copy of the complaint was sent to the Superintendent of Police. Another ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that the Court below by referring to the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case betr.r,een Priganka Sriuastaaa & Another as State Of

¶44

Dt⁽ .\l ..1 t'ri R ( \r -j j' ot )0) l

¶45

¶46

U.P.& Orst ancl Section 154(1) and (3) Cr.P.C^q/ould refuse to refer the complaint to police, and had the Court belou, expressed such an opillion, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner rvould have enlightened the Court that the required procedure is follovved. But, the mind of the Court below was revealed on11. thror-rgh the impugned order.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the Court belou, ',vithout perusing the material on record, where sufficient proof is available that the petitioner approachecl the concerned Station House Officer arrd also the Superin ter.r dent of Police, passed the impugned orcler.

¶48

When the ordcr under challenge is looked into, this Court finds that the request of the petitioner was not honoured rnainly on the ground that the mandatory requirement as enunciated under Section 15a(1) and (3) Cr.P.C was not complied u,ith.

¶49

'^{lzotsye scc zsz}

¶50

¶51

DT.CSL,J Crl. R.C. No.J57 of202l

¶52

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice ol this Court the contents of the sworn statement of the petitioner, wherein and whereby it is indicated that a photostat copy of the complaint which was sent to Superir-rtendent of Police is annexed therewith.

¶54

1 1 . Having regard to the said fact and also taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that an opportunity to produce suificient material with regard to compliance of mandatory requirement is not accorded to the petitioner, this Court considers it desirable to set aside the impugned order as prayed for.

¶55

Resu1tant11,, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The order that is rendered by the Court of Additiona-l Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwa-l in C.F.R.No.1l78 of 2022, dated 08.04.2021, is hereby set aside.

¶56

i3. The Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal, is directed to hear the contentions of

¶57

trr-

¶58

Dr.(.\l .t t tl.ll.r...'o -iji o/ )A) I

¶59

¶60

the petitioner afresh, peruse the documents tvhich are available on record and thereafter, pass a reasoned order \,ith regarcl to compliance of mandator], requirements. However, it is clearly indicated that the said Court shall not take axv fresh material from the petitioner for deciding vyhether tl-re case has to be referred to Police for investigatior-r or not. Tl-re Court is directed to render the orders without being influenced by any of the observations made by ti-ris Court in this order regard ing the merits of the CASC.

¶61

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if

¶62

any, shall stald closed.

¶63

SD/-M.MANJULA DEPUTY REATTIKAR

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Gadwal

¶68

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court^{for the Stateof Telanganaat} Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶69

One CC to SRl. P. VAMSHEEDHAR^REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶70

One CC to Sri N.M. Krishnaiah, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶71

One CC to Sri J. Prabhakar, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶72

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/1112022.

ORDER

CRLRC.No.357 of 2021

S TA
<br>/,e.
t!5
22 [Et ?trfl I
'.' t)
*
i-

¶79

ALLOWING THE CRL.R.C. @u't,'4w"

Khazi Ghouse v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khazi Ghouse 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

Deepak Singh Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Kesarla Nagaraju and 5 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

D. Naresh Vs The State of Telangana

Khaji Gouse , Khazi Gouse Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Prime Movers Mobility Technologies Vs The State of Telangana

Cheekoti Buchi Ramulu Vs The State of Telangana