Partly allowed

Badam Praveen v. Dr P Raghu

Telangana HC20 Jul 2023CRLP/7612/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged fresh FIRs for trespass, forgery, and criminal intimidation. The Court quashed proceedings for trespass and intimidation as duplicate complaints, but directed police to continue investigating forgery allegations which were not previously adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings for IPC Sections 447 and 506 quashed; for IPC Sections 120B, 468, 471, directions to police to continue investigation and file report.

Badam Praveen Vs Dr P Raghu — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132161

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR T'HE STATE OF TELANGANA-'--..' AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TLU.T-S?AY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND rul/ENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶6

Between:

¶7

CRIMI NAL PETITIO NNO :767zoF 20 't8

¶8

f,'?,tffi Li:g;l*f8f;ij?X;,,1ffi.-^{€usinessR/o- H No.2-3,Abbapur Virrase,}

¶9

...PETITIONERYACCUSED NO.7

¶10

AND

¶11

Dr P Raghu, S/o. Laxminarayana, Occ _ Civil Asst. Surgeon, M G M HosoitalHi:"$',?l,gl''[1:,[1fl'6|Y*':t::virr"s'-i1''iii;i"i'wilft "]'r'rrvrv^a'

¶12

.....RespondenU Complainant

¶13

2 Iffi"?:|t:o:'*lansana'^{Rep bv its Pubtic Prosecutor,Hish courtBrdss,}

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

:Fyi:,l,'f^{i,"T::i,fffi :i"..3,,1!:i8;i,ffi} H?,,T.id:ll;,"J:x[;l:?T: pleased to ca, for the records rerating to pi."""o]"i."li, crrr. N"] ziioii;;il: file of P,S Mulug, Jayashanka(- Bhripatirriviioi inl'.nces under Sec. 120B, 468, 471 , 441 , 506 of tpC, in so far as p"titioi..VZiill""r."O

¶16

t.A. NO: 10F 2018

¶17

Petition under section 4g2 0f cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds "r crtrrllr'p"iition, the High court mav be pleased to order to stav of ail_further pro"*JingI'in irime No. 2Br2o1T on the fire of P S Murug, Javashankar (Bhuparp;flyi];; ih;;ff;""" under sec. 1208, 468, 471 , 447,506 tpC, in so far i" z,d a"crili'

¶18

This^petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing rc Memorandum of Grounds of Criminat petition 3n! .uOon h6".iig ih;rrguments of Sri p.KtRAI\i Advocate for the petitioner and of tn" nootionriprb"ric prosecutor tor ttre state oi Tetangana on beharf of the Respondlri N;.r;;; ii'n.praunarcr Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.1

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No.76L2 of 2O18

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

i . This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Crimina-l Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C), to quash the^proceedings again st the petitioner/ accu sed No.7 in Crime No.28 of 2Ol7, on the file of the Mulugu Police Station, .Jayashnakar^{(Bhupalpally)} District, which was registered for the offence under Sections 1.208, 468, 47 l, 447 and 506 of Indian Penal Code

¶24

Backgrounds of the facts show that initially the complainant/l-rrst respondent hcrein, gave a complaint before the Mulugu Police Station alleging thaL the petitioner and others by creating fictitious documen t s t respassed into his land and criminally intimidated him to grab the property. Based on the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.106 of 2Ol2 on the Frle of the Mulugu Police Station, lor the offences punishable under Sections 12Ob,468,477,447 and 506 of IPC. Subsequently, the police filed a memo requesting the Court belovr to grant permission to rcinr.,cstigate the casc and to file a supplementaqr charge shect vide SR.No.2380 oi 20 I3. By docket order dated 12.O1.2O13, same ^,as rejecled holdirrg I hat

¶25

¶26

permission is not necessary for {iling^{supplementary charge sheet} after conducting further^{investigation. Later, respondent No.2 also} filed a memo for^{postponementof trial until police filed a} supplementa,ry charge^{sheet after re-investigation.By a docket} order dated 29.O3.2018,^{the said prayer was rejected.Thereafter,} the petitioner has^{frled a private complaintunder Section200 of} Cr.P.C., for the^{same allegations.The said complaintwas referred} to the police and the^{police has registereda case in Crime No'28 of} 2017. Challenging the^{sarne, present criminal petition is filed'}

¶27

The contention of^{thelearned counselforthe} petitioner/ accused No.7 is^{that initially, as per the complaint} given by respondent^{No.1, a case \4'as registered in CrimeNo' 106} of 2Ol2 and after^{investigation, police have filed charge sheet in} C.C.No.263 of 2Ol2^{and the sarne was pending triat' Duringthe} pendency of the trial,^{respondent No.l filed a memo for further} investigation and^{thepolice also hled amemo tofile} supplementary charge^{sheet and both the prayers were dismissed'} However, without^{challenging the said orders, thedefacto} complainant^{has preferreda complainant,whichwas registered in} Crime No.28 of^{2Ol7 . Having chosen not to file protest petition} and when^{the Iinal report was accepted, respondent No'l herein}

¶28

¶29

cannot chose to file fresh^{complaint.Therefore,proceedingsin} Crime No.28 of 2OL7,^{are liable to be quashed.}

¶30

Learned counsel representing^{for therespondent-State} contended that there is no^{bar on hling the second complaint in} respect of the same^{allegationsifthe previous report was not} decided on merits.^{According to him, previous charge sheethled} by the police has not^{dealt with the offence of forgery. Therefore, it} is open to respondent No.l to^{frle protest petitlon or a separate} complaint in respect^{of the investigation, whichis not done by the} police for the offence against whom^{allegations are made in the} previous complaint. Therefore,^{according to him, this petition is} liable to be dismissed.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel on either^{side and perusedthe} material placed on record.

¶32

On perusal of the record, it^{clearly demonstrates that it is} not in dispute that respondent No.l^{herein filed report before} Mulugu Police Station, which^{was registeredas Crime No.106 of} 2012, wherein, apart from^{allegations of tresspass, use of filthy} language and threatening with dire consequences,^{it isalso} alleged that damages were made by the accused ulterior motive based on the hctitious docurnents. It is not in dispute that the

¶33

¶34

investigation^{was conducted by the policeon the said report and} they have also^{liled charge sheet only for the offence under} Sections 447,^{468 and 5O6 of IPC but they did not refer whether} the allegation^{of forgeryand creating fictitiousdocumentswere} made out or not.^{At that stage, the police frled a memorequesting} the Court to^{permit them for furtherinvestigationtofile} supplementary^{charge sheet, but the same was dismissedby the} Court below holding^{that such permissionis not requiredfor filing} supplementary^{charge sheet; in spite of that policehave not} chosen to lile^{any supplementarychargesheet' It is not in dispute} that while accepting^{such charge sheet filed by the police'the} petitioner has not^{filed any protest petition' Thereafter'he filed} present independent^{complaint and it again was referredto police} for further inve^stigation.

¶35

7 . As per the^{decisionof the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the} Case of Vishnu^{Kum.ar Tiwari Vs, Stateo;f llttarPrad'esh qnd} Others in Criminal^{Appeal No'10 15 of 2Ol9} '^{it was held that filing} of second complaint^{is no bar if the previouscomplaintis not} decided on merits^{in respect of the a'tlegations containedin the} previous complaint^{withoutno fresh cause of action' It is also held} that merely^{because the hnai report is accepted the aggrieved} party is not^{deprived from filingfresh compfint' When thereis no}

II I I I

I iI

bar on filing fresh complaint when the previous allegations were not investigated and no findings are given on merits, flling of the present complaint is within four corners of the statutory provlslons

¶40

In the present complaint also respondent No.1 tried to bring the allegations relating to trespass and criminal intimidation, which are already part of the previous complaint in Crime No.106 of 2012. Therefore, allowing fresh FIR in respect of the offence under Section 447 and 506 of IPC in spite of the previous complaint and charge sheet hled amounts to abuse of process of Iaw. The proceedings for the offence under Section 447 and 506 of IPC are liable to be quashed. Further, the oflence under Sections 1208, 468 ar.d 47 I of IPC are relating to allegations of creating of fictitious documents to claim justihcation for trespass and criminal intimidation, ald to that effect police have not previously investigated or decided on merits in the previous FIR. Therefore, lor the offence under Sections l2OB, 468 and 47 I of IPC proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage.

¶41

In the result, this Criminal Petition is partly allowed as folloq,s: '-

¶42

¶43

(i) Proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.7 for the

¶44

offence under Sections 447 and 506 of IPC are quashed.

¶45

(ii) Proceedings against the petitioner for the offence under

¶46

Sections L2Ob, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 156(3) of CPC

¶47

are concerned, the police are directed to continue the

¶48

investigation and to file a appropriate report.

¶49

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶50

¶51

Sd/-A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// c1D

¶52

SECTION OFFICER

¶53

¶54

The Station House fficer, Police Station,^{Mulug, Jahashankar(Bhupalpally)} 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad (OUT)

¶55

One CC to Sri P.Kiran, Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

One CC to Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

Two CD Copies

?mq,

HIGH COURT

DATED:2O10712023

ORDER

CRLP.No.7612 of 2018

1 r\ii '
k
.(
il
o-) 1
(_) 11 l,ilE ?sR
*
.,-.1.

¶65

Aq.
p*wt

¶66

CRL.P. IS PARTLY ALLOWEO.

Badam Praveen v. Dr P Raghu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badam Praveen v. Dr P Raghu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Raviteja Vs the State of Telangana

M. Raja Mani , Raja Mani and another Vs State of Telangana and another

S. Kamakshaiah And 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Fazal Ahmed Shaik Vs The State of Telangana

Peddaveni Mallaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Anudeep Gondra Vs The State of Telangana