Partly allowed

Sakamuri Venu and Another v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Jul 2023CRLP/5571/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against petitioner-accused No.6 for offences under PIT Act, holding application of IPC 370A serves no purpose. Petition dismissed for second accused due to prior acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioner No.1 (accused No.6) under C.C. No.410 of 2012 are quashed and petition allowed; petition regarding petitioner No.2 (accused No.7) is dismissed.

Sakamuri Venu and Another Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5571 0F 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Sakamuri Venu, S/o.Munuswamy Naidu, aged 37 years, Occ pvt Employee, C/o Hitech Prnting Press, Gowligda, Hydera6ad,TS N/o H Nb.9:25933,Vengalrao nagar,Kavali,Nellore Dist., .AP

¶9

2 Mula Bhaskar, S/o.Shamsunder, aged 27 yeas, Occ^pvt Employee, Rl/o H No.1-32-58, Chinna Tokatta, New Bowenpally,Secunderabad,TS

¶10

... Petitioner/ACCUSED(S)

¶11

; AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, through P.S Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, TS

¶13

...RespondenUComplainant

¶14

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 call for the records relating to Petitioners/accused 6 and 7 in CC No.410 of 2112(Crime No. 544 of 2011 of P S Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, TS), on the file of the Special JFCM Magistrate for Excise, at Erramanzil, Hyderabad, TS and quash the same.

¶15

!.A. NO: 1 OF 2015^(CRLPMP. NO: 5578 OF 2015)

¶16

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 all further proceedings including personal appearance of the Petitioners/accused No. 6 & 7 in CC No.410 of 2O12(Crime No. 544 of 201 1 of P S Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, TS)" on the file of the Special JFCM

¶17

Magrstrate for :-:cise, :rt Erramanzil, Hyderabad, TS, agatnst the Petitio ne rs/accu s()( I'o.6 & 7, pendrng disposal of the above (.lrirrinal Petition.

¶18

This Petitror r-oroing on for hearing, upon perusirrg :he [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Crirni a Petition and upon hearing tlte arr;r- merrts of Sri Bethi Venkateswarlu, r\d ,'cr:ate for the Petitioner and the Publi : Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Soler F es pcrndent.

¶19

The Court made th : loltowing: ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5571 oF 2015

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4g2 of Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records relating to petitionersaccused Nos.6 and 7 in C.C.No.41O of 2Ol2 (Crime No.544 of 2Oll of P.S. Sanjeeva Reddy, Hyderabad, TS), on the frle of learned Specia-l Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise, at Errarnanzil, Hyde?bad, TS and quash the same.

¶24

Heard Ms. Swathi, learned counsel representing Mr. Bethi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent State.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this Criminal Petition is squarely covered by the order dated 22.O3.2O2L in Criminal Petition No.1786 of 2013 and batch, order dated 05.06.2013 in Criminal Petition No.5993 of 2013 and batch, order dated 05.02.2014 in Criminal Petition No.1O15 of 2Ol4 and order dated 26.06.2014 in Criminal Petition No.69O6 of 2014 passed by this Court, wherein, the crimes registered under Sections. 3,4,5,5(1)(d) and 7(1) of Immoral Traflic (prevention)

¶26

¶27

Act, 195(r (ltrr r,hort, "PIT Act") have been^,luas;lrr,d. [t is lurther submittc,l tha:. in similar set of circumstances, t,he er:;tuhile High Court vrcc r>r, le r rf ated 19.03.20 15 in Criminal Pr tition No.1795 of 20 t 5 l-ras; q rashed the proceedings againril rhe petitioneraccuscd No.li o^- the off'ences punishable ur der lic:tions.3, 4 arld 5 of the Ptl' A :t stating that the petitior: er ,vail admittedly a cLrstomer to l-l-e brothel house. Hence, ser:l<:; to quash the proceedirgs ir^(l.C.No.,l1O of 2Ol2 on the lle ol l :arned Special Judicial Fi;-s Class Magistrate for Ex<:ist:, ilt Err arnanzil, Hyder'Lad

¶28

Learnr:rl rr.sr;istant Public Prosecuto- b'r proCucing the instructior-rs l irr;sr:d on to the learned Pr-Lblic Ir"osecutor vide letter clatr:d 2'.^(,6.2023 addressed by the Strb-Irxrp:ctcr of Police, S.R. Nagzrr^Dc i,. e Stati,:n, Hyderabad, subrnittr:rl that the trial against lrettti rrter No.1-accused No.6 is percIrrg before the learnerl ,\drlit o'ral Chief Metropolitan Magist^-e.te, Nampally, while the trial allainst petitioner No.2-accused l.Lr,'' is, concluded by acquittingl I irr on 23.12.2019

¶29

LearnerC :,sistant Public Prosecutor woulcl fr.rttrer contend that in ".q. l\kz ,e :n Kumar Qi) Natteen Vs. Th,: Sta: of Telangana, represcnt<.d bi^pu blic Prosecutor, Htgh Court, Lr4 7er abad" vide

¶30

¶31

order dated^{28.04.2015in Criminal Petition No'3158 of 2015 the} Hontrle High Court^{of AndhraPradesh has directedthe} CommittalCourttotakecognizanceofoffenceunderSection 37OA of I.P.C.^{while quashing the proceedingsagainstthe} petitioner for^{the offenceunder Section' 4 of PIT Act, if the charge} sheet discloses^{the commissionof offence underSection370A of} Indian Penal^{Code, 1860 (for short, "I'P'C'")'But in the present} case on hand,^{the Crime was pertaining to the year, 2011and the} provision of^{Section 37OA of I.P.C was broughtinto force by way} of the Criminal^{Law (amendment)Act, 2O13' Therefore'no} purpose would be^{served in continuing the proceedings in the} present case. Hence,^{seeks to pass appropriate orders'}

¶32

In view of the^{facts and circumstancesof the case and} upon considering^{the submissionsmade by both the learned} counsel, it^{can be noticedthat by the time Cr'No'544 of 2011 is} registered i.e,^{on dated10.06.2011, Section'370(A) of I'P'C' was} not in vogue.^{Moreover, sincethe petitionerNo' 1-accused No'6 is} also a customer^{to the brothelhouse and stands on the same} footing with^{the petitionerin the order cited supra' therefore the} proceedings against^{petitioner No' l-accused No'6 can safely be} quashed under Section^{37OA ofI P'C'Accordingly' the}

¶33

¶34

proceedil-lgs a liiinst thr, pctitioner No.1 accuseri^,o.6 are hereby quashed.

¶35

In the rr .;r rlt, thr: tlrimin:rl Petition in so far rrr; tlLe petitioner No. 1 accusr:cl lJo.6 concerned is allowe I l;,) quashing the proceedir gs ,r rarinst hin in C.C.No.41O of 2012 ((t.ime No.544 of 201 1) on ttr,: file of tlie learned Additional Chicl X{etropolitan Maeistrate, l\ i rlpally.

¶36

The Orir rinzLl Pelition in so far as the p.'tit.oner No.2accused No.7^,. or)cern,ld is dismissed as infr _.1( tuous as the petitioner No ! ['as; already been acquitted orr 23. 1,.,.2()19

¶37

Misr:elleLr e,rus Petitions, pending if any, shil I ;tand closed.

¶38

Sd/- CI. I)RIWEEN KUMAR ASSIS'TAIIT REGISTRAR ( )tr,

//TRUE COPY//

:i,ECTION OFFICER

To,

The Judicial F^.sl Class Magistrate of Excise, Errarnanzil t'lyderabad, T.S. 2. The Stat on Hr^'rr;e Officer, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Poli:,: :itat on, Hyderabad 3. One CC to SF l. BE:THI VENKATESWARLU, Advc,cate [CI)UO]

¶43