Allowed

R.Rambabu v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Nov 2023CRLP/6308/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed Criminal Petitions filed by multiple accused persons. The petitioners challenged an order where a Magistrate took cognizance and framed charges by rejecting a police report without conducting the mandatory examination of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The order was also criticized for lacking reasoning. Setting aside the impugned order, the Court held that summoni

What did the court decide?

Impugned order taking cognizance in Cr1.M.P. No. 822 of 2019 was set aside. Criminal Petitions Nos. 4929 and 6308 of 2019 were allowed, quashing the proceedings for the time being, though subject to c

R.Rambabu Vs State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos 4929 & 6308 oF 2019

¶6

Crl. Petition No. 4929 of 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

V.Raghu Prasad s/o .V.Gopar Rao R/o H.No.4-12-106/101, Arunodava Nagar, Near Community Ha[, Vanastatipuram, HayainnZgir_'sboijzo.'-''""-r'

¶9

V.Madhavi, wo.V.Raghu prasad, Rr/o H.No.4-12-106/101, Arunodava Naoar. Near Community Hail,"Vanasiatiruiam H;r;ti.rnigar-so0070.

¶10

S. Lf.rlyfnfq Rao, S/o.y.Rama.Rao, aged about 68 years, Fi./o.H.No.3_.10951 N 4l't, Gokhale Nor, Ramanthapui, U-yOeraOad_SOOOi g

¶11

a. Y.9pil4q,^Wo.^y.Kutumb.a Rao..Aged about 65 years, Fi/o.H.No.3-10951 N 41 1, Gokhate, Ramanthapur, HyOtraOad_SOOfit S

¶12

Shobana_Devi, Wo.T.Prasada Rao, Ri,/o. Flat No.70, Block_S, HIG Flats, Sth Phase, KPHB Colon Kukatpally, Hyderabad_ SOOOIZ

¶13

P.Tarabai, Wo.P.Subba Rao.Aged about 67 years, R/o.H.No.401, Janapriya 4th Phase, B Block, Miyapur, Hy-derabad_S000'49

¶14

G.Lakshmi, W/o.G.Narendrg ggOy.Ftat No.70, Btock No.05, HtG Ftats, Sth Phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpaily, HyaeraUad_Sb0O7Z

¶15

a. !!,|jg!na,W/o. Late M.Kutumba Rao, Aged about 67 years, F/o. H.No.7-1 QeplpJ,^{rtg! No.504,} .^V^and^anas^nasiunadrr- Nituvi",,^{-'rrlloj!r''b;6"y,} S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad-500038

¶16

B.Srinivas Rao, Sio. Late B.Appa Rao Aged about 59 years, Fl/o.H.No.25_ 40/1 5, Bettamkonda Aven ue, Sa'raswathinigtr, E;;a A*'"; ilg'h; Ni, f f,ria:;, Hyderabad-500047

¶17

10.Ram Babu Mandala, S/o Jt/.Raghavaiah Aged about 44 yearc, R/o. H.No-412-1OO|1O2, Plt No.09, Hoad No.7, Arunodaya Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad-500070

¶18

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No. 1, 2, 4 to 11

¶19

AND

¶20

1 9.tate^{of relangana, ThroughPubric prosecutor} High court of rerangana. At Hyderabad.

¶21

2 La.nka Rajg!9ra_lrasad, S/o L.Chandra Sekhar Rao, Age.32 years, Occ. Advocate, R/o. SRT 207, Sanathnagar, HyOerabaO-SOObtA

¶22

...RESPONDENT/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶23

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 quash order passed in Crl.M.P.No. 822 oI 2019 in Crime No.1B2 of 2018, dated 110712019 on the file of ll Addl.^{Junior CivilJudge XIX Addl.} Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, and consequently^quash C.C:.No.891/2019, against the^petitioners / Accused No.1,2 and 4 to 11.

¶24

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶25

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the [trlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition,the High Court may be} pleased to stay all further proceedings against the^petitioners herein in C.CNo.891 of 2019 on the file of ll Addl. Junior Civil Judge XIX Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Telangana State.

¶26

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Mernorandum of Grounds of Criminal Peiition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Y. BALAJI Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on br.'half of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri N. Ravi Prasad, Advocate for the Respondent No.2^.

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6308 OF 2019

¶28

Between:

¶29

R.Rambabu, S/o. R.Kuchelaiah, Aged about.71, F/o. Flat No.201, Siri Jewel, Adjacent road to my home Jewels, Gangaram, Chandanagar, Hyderabad-500050.

¶30

..PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.3

¶31

AND

¶32

State of Telangana, Through Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana At Hyderabad-500022.

¶33

Lanka Rajendra Prasad, S/o L.Chandra Sekhar Rao, Age.32^years, Occ. Advocate, RA). SRT 207, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad-500018

¶34

...RESPONDENTS/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶35

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 quash order passed in Crl.M.P.No. 822 ot 2019 in Crime No.182 of 2018, dated'1 .06.2019 on the file of ll Addl, Junior Civil Judge XIX Addl.

¶36

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, and consequently quash C.C.No.891/2019, against lhe^petitioner / Accused No.3 .

¶37

l.A. NO: 1OF 2019

¶38

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 against the petitioner/ Accused No.3 herein in C.C.No.891 of 2019 on the file of ll Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XIX Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri, Telangana State.

¶39

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri y. BALAJI Advocate for the Petitioner and the public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri N. Ravi prasad,Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶40

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER

¶41

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶42

CRIMINAL PETITrON NOS.4929 & 6308 0F 2()19

¶43

COMMON ORDER:

¶44

The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.4929 of 2019 are A1, A2, A4 to A11 and petitioner in Criminal Petition No.63OB of 2OI9 is A3, aggrievecl by the orders passed in Cr1.M.P.No.822 ot'2019 in Crime No.182 of 2018 on the file of II Additiona_l Junior Civil Judgecum-XIX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, filed the petitions.

¶45

The police on the basis of the complaint frled by the 2nd respondent filed final report referring the case as false. Allgrieved by the same, the 2"d respondent filed protest petition belbre the triai Court. By impugned order vide in Cr1.M.p.No.822 of 11019 in Crime No. 182 of 2018, dated O1.06.2019, the learned Magistrate had taten cognizance against these petitioners for the offences under Sections 448,323,5O4 r/w 149 IPC.

¶46

In the impugned order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance giving reasons at para 5, as follows:

¶47

"As seen frorn the protest petition, the complainant has made out atld established clear incidents of criminal intimiclation, damage of property so also criminal intimidation. Police have closed the case as false without submitting statements that were recorded by them before the Court. Their statements were also video recorded but

¶48

¶49

were not produced before the Court, which clearly establishes that S.l. of Police/ D. Srinivas Rao is under the influence of the accused as one of the accused is son of al IAS officer. This Court is convinced with the pleadings and statements of LW 1 to LW3 alrd this is ht case to proceed against accused. As such, frnal report is rejected and cognizance is taken against A1 to Al l for the offence U/s.448.323,504 r/w i49 IPC."

¶50

When the case is closed, though there is no provision for protest petition to be frled before the Court, in the event of such protest petition or complaint being filed, the Court has to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted hereunder:

¶51

"2oo.Examination of complainant: A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examinaLion shall be reduced to writing and sha-Il be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate: Provided that, when tJ:e complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine tJle complainant arrd the witnesses-

¶52

(a) if a public servant acting or- purporting to act ifl the discharge of his official duLies or a Court has made the complaint; or

¶53

(b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 192: Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to anotler Magistrate under section 192 after exarnining the complainant and the lritnesses, ttre latter Magistrate need not re- examine them."

¶54

The provision contemplates examination of complainant upon oath and arry other witnesses present. After such examination, cognizance can be taken. Exemptions are under clauses (a) and (b), which are not applicable in the present case.

<br>

From the order, it is evident that none of the witnel;ses were examined, which is violation of the procedure.

¶59

7 . Further, the learned Magistrate had stated that from the protest petition, incidents of criminal intimidation, damage of property rvere made out. However, Magistrate did not mention about the facts briefly to infer that the offence was made out.

¶60

This Court in the Common Order dated 28.02.'2023 rn Criminal Petition Nos.439 and 545 of 2023, quastred the proceedings on 28.02.2023 finding that taking cognizance against the accused was not in accordance with the law laid dowrL by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of; i) Sunil Bharti Mittal v, Central Bureau of Investigat'onf ii) Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and another2; iii) Deepak Gaba and others v. State of Uttar Pradeshs.

¶61

This Court in Criminal Petition Nos.439 and 545 oI 2023, held as follor.r,s:

¶62

'16. The Honble Supreme Court further held that mere assertion "that having perused the record ald statements cf witnesses pima facie accusation is well founded" as recorderl

¶63

t 1ZOt51^{+ Suprerr.reCourt Cases 6o9)}

¶64

'1ZOOS1^{tz Supreme} Court Cases 157

¶65

r (2023 LiveLaw(SC) 3

¶66

¶67

by the learned Magistrate^{will not meet the requirementsof} summoning the accused by^{appiicationof judicious mind'} Time and again, this Court^{and the Hon'ble SupremeCourt} has found that summoning^{aperson as accused to face} criminal trial is a serious step^{taken by the criminalCourt and} such summoning can only^{be done when the Magistratefrnds} on the basis of facts that the^{ingredients of the offencealleged} are pima facie made out.^For the^{saidreason,cogrrizance} order bereft of^proper reasoning^{is liable to be set aside and} accordingly set aside."

¶68

¶69

Both for the reasons of^{not following the procedure under} Section 200 Cr.P.C arrd also^{the order taking cognizancebeing} bereft of the reasons, the^{impugrred order takingcognizance} against the petitioners^{by II AdditionalJunior Civil Judge-cum-XlX} Additional Metropolitan^{Magistrate,Cyberabad,is hereby set aside'} However, this order will not^{preclude the trial Court from taking} cognizance in accordance^{with the observationsof the Hon'ble} Supreme Court in^{the abovejudgments.}

¶70

1 1. Accordingly, both^{theCriminalPetitions areallowed'} Consequently, miscellaneous^{applications, ifany, shallstand}

¶71

closed.

¶72

sd/- c. PRAVEEN^KUI4AR' ASSTSTANT REGIStrRAR / V /ITRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶73

¶74