Allowed

Vanguluri Suresh, Karimnagar v. Public Prosecutor, Karimnagar and Another

Telangana HC13 Sept 2023CRLP/9336/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. holding that prosecuting the petitioner for offences arising from the same incident where he was already convicted violates Section 300 Cr.P.C. and amounts to abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.28 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani are quashed.

Vanguluri Suresh, Karimnagar Vs Public Prosecutor… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t^32es I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY , THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9336 OF 2O'15

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vanguluri Suresh, S/o. Sailu, R/o. Gunjapadugu Village, Manthani Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶9

-..PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana , Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶12

RESPONDENT

¶13

Gattu Kishan Rao, S/o. Rajanna, R/o- Gunjapadugu Village, Manthani Mandal, Karimnagar District

¶14

...RESPONDENT/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the entire proceedings in C.C No. 28 of 2015 on the file of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ivlanthani.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(CRLPMP. NO: 9388 OL2015)

¶17

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 grant stay of all further^proceedings including appearance of the Petitioner in connection with C.C No. 28 of 2015 on the file of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani, pending disposal of the main criminal petition.

¶18

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^{perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal^Petition and^{uponhearing the argumentsof Sri} NlI\4MAGADDA SATYANARAYANA ,Advocate^{for the Petitionerand the Public} Prosecutor Telangana on^{behalf of the RespondentNo.1 and of Sri P.V} NAGAMANI Advocate for the Respondent^No.2

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.^1r/. VEI{IIGOPAL CFIMINAL PETITION No.9336^,)f 201l;

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The pr esent Criminal Petition is fil,:d under Section 482 of Cr.P C. seeking to quash the prr,ceed n gs against the petitiont'r/accused in C.C.No.9336 of 2O1li cn the file of the Juc icial Magistrate of First^(llass, Ma nthani. A charge sheet came to be filed ag:rinr;t the petitioner/ a, rcused for tl-re offences pr-rnish:r1rle under Sections 29t (bl and 5O6 of I.P.C.

¶26

Heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanaravana, learned counsel apJ earing for the petitioner, learnerl Ad litional Public Prosr clrtor appearing lor the 1.t lesponcent State None appearecl for the 2"d respondent. Per-used tl-re record.

¶27

The br el facts of the case are that the 2na r3st'ondent is resident cf Gunjapadugu Village. On.10.03.2011 night hours, the 2n,l respondent sent his grandson to kirara shop to pur< hase a Thumps up bottle ancl the granCson of the 2"d rescondent purchased Thumps trp l-ottle and informed to him that the shop owner tool: Rs..l5/ though

)

the original rate is Rs.35/-. Immediately, the 2"d respondent informed to his friend Venu that the shop owner took Rs.lO/- extra, in the meantime the petitioner/accused, who came there at about 21.30 hours and started abusing the 2"a respondent and his daughter unnecessarily that he has contacted the killers for Rs.3.00 lakhs to kill the 2"d respondent. On hearing the same, when the daughter of the 2"d respondent questioned the petitioner/accused, why he is threatening his father, the petitioner/ accused abused the daughter of the 2n't respondent in filthy language in the public place and threatened that he would kill the 2"a respondent. Basing on the said facts, a petty case was registered against the petitioner uide Crime No.16 of 2Ol3 and on 08.04.2013 while the petitioner/ accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.94 of 2O13 he pleaded guilty and he was convicted and sentenced to pay an amount of RS.1O0/- for the offence punishable under Section 29O of IPC and Rs.2O0/- for the offence punishable under Section 5O4 of IPC and the petitioner/ accused had paid the said amount. Aggrieved by the same, the 2"d respondent had

¶32

¶33

filed Criminr.l Petition No.4809 of 2013, se ekingl a d rection to the Stat on House Officer, Manthani Polic,: lltation, Karimnagar District to register F.l.R. basinlS ,rn the complaints liled by him. By an order, dlted 10.0r).2013, this Court disposed ol the said criminal petiti rrr directing the Super ntendent of Police, Karimn;1gar D istrict, to authorize a police officer above the ra nk c f th e SubInspector o' Police, Manthani, to investiga,e irLto the allegations rentioned in the complainl lod 3r:d by the petitioner arrd direct him to llle a final report. r\s per the directions o' this Court, fresh crime was regisler,:d uide F.I.R.No.29 tf 2Ol4 and conducted reinvestig:rtion. After examining thr: eye witnesses to the in:ident ancl after completing the investigation, tl charge shee t u,zrs filed before the Jrrdicial Magistrate of First Clar;s, M,rrLthirni and the said ch€.rge sheet was taken cognizance as C.(1.No.28 of 2015 against the petitioner/ accusecl.^'l'he present criminal petition is filed seeking to quast the p:'oceedings in the said C.C

¶34

¶35

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for the alleged offences, the petitioner has already convicted and sentenced in C.C.No .94 of 2Ol3 and once the proceedings were finalized and charge sheet was filed and Court found guilty and consequently sentenced him for the same incident, the petitioner cannot be subjected to prosecution second time. It is further submitted that initially the police filed charge sheet in a petty case and later reopen the crime, which amounts to sheer abuse of process of law and the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶37

Lear-ned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the charge sheet are to be decided in a full fledged trial, therefore it is not a lit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶38

Before proceeding further, I deem it appropriate to refer to Section 300 of the Cr.P.C., which reads as under:-

¶39

"300. Person once convictcd or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.--(1) A person who has once been tried by

¶40

)

¶41

a Court of competent jurisdiction f<rr an offe ece and convict ed or acquitted of such offencc shall, wh ile such convict ion or acquittal remains in force, not re liable to be tried a 3ain for the same offence, nor orr the ria:re facts for any ot her offence for which a differerrt chrLrgle liom the one mirde against him might have been mace under subsectior (1) of section 22 I , or for which 1-re mi11ht h,rve been convicled under sub-section (2) thereof

¶42

(2) A p:rson acquitted or convicted of irny ollence may be afterwz-rds tried, with the consent ol' th,: State Goverr: ment, for any distinct offence for whi:h a separate charge might have been made against him at th: former trial urLder sub-section ( 1) of section 22Q.

¶43

(3) A person convicted of any offence^{,ronstrtutecl} by any act cartsing consequences which, together u'itn such act, constit:ted a different offence from th:rt of rvl ich he was convicted, may be afterwards tried fol such last mentioned offence, if the consequenc( s had not happer,ed, or were not known to the Court to have happer.ed, at the time when he was convictecl.

¶44

(4) A pr:rson acquitted convicted of any <lffen< e constituted by an., acts may, notwithstanding such acqlrittal or convict ion, be subsequently charged vrith, and tried for, any otl rer offence constituted by the same acts vrhich he may hiwe committed if the Court by ,vhich he rvas first tried was not competent to try the offerrce u'it h v'hich he * is.subs:quently charged.

(5) A person discharged under section 258 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first mentioned Court is subordinate.

¶50

(6) Nothing in this section shall affect thc provisions of section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (iO of 1897) or of section 188 of this Code.

¶51

Explanation.--The dismissal of a complaint, or the for the discharge of the accused, is not an acquittal purposes of this section. "

¶52

7 . Section 3OO of the Cr.P.C. mandates that once a

¶53

person is convicted or acquitted not to be tried for the same offence. A person who has been tried by a Court for an offence and is convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force would not be liable to be tried again for the same offence or on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of Section 221 or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof. It is therefore necessary to reler to Section 221 of the Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:

¶54

¶55

¶56

"221. $'the:re it is doubtful what offence has been⁽ ommitted--(1) If a rringle act or series of acts is of such a n.rtlrre that it is doubtfu which of several offences the {acts rvhich can be proved r ri-ll constitute, the accused may be charg( d with having committed all or any of such offences, and any nrrnrber of such charges may be tried at once; or he may be c.-rzrrge,1 in the alternative with having committed som(' one r:f the said offences (2) If in such a case the accused :s cha:gr:d rvith one offence, and it appears in evidence that he c(,ml.itted a different offence for which he might have treen charged under the provisions of sub-section (1), he may be corrvicte,l of the offence v,hich he is shown to have committr'd, altho:gh he was not char;1ed with it."

¶57

Section 221 of Cr.P.C. mandates that if a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doulrtlul rvhich of several offr nces, which can be proved wi I consl itr-rte, the accused may be charged with having comr-rittec rtll^,rr any of such offenr:es, and any number of charges mav b,: tried at once. In t he event, the accused is chargec ,vith one offence and it appears in evidence that he t as cc,n'Lmitted a different offence for which, he might have b,:en charg,:d, he may be convi<rted of the offence which he is shoryr tc have committed thc ugh he was not charged with it.

On a conjoint reading ol Section 3O0 and Section 221 of the Cr.P.C. what would emerge is that, the charges for the offences under Sections 290 and 504 of IPC in C.C.No.94 of 2013 and the charges for the offences under Sections 294 (bl and 5O6 of IPC arose out of the same incident. Though it arose out of the same incident, a separate criminal case is registered for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner. The substratum of both the proceedings is one and the same. If substratum of both the proceedings is same, acquittal in one would enure to the benefit of the accused in the subsequent proceedings; if he is convicted or acquitted in the earlier case and that conviction or acquittal subsists during the period in which the petitioner/accused IS sought to be tried in a subsequent criminal case. The protection is by usage of words 'nor on the same facts for aly other offence' would mean that it would extend to different offences only when they are based on same facts.

¶62

¶63

In Prem. Chand Sing Vs. State o1' Uttrrr P::adeshl the Apex Co:rt held as under:-

¶64

"ln vie-a of the conclusion that the substrstum cf the two FIRs are the same and that the appellant has alrea<ly stood acquittr d on 7-8-1998 ofthe charge with r egard tc folging any general power of attorney of the responrlent, wc ale of the conside :ed opinion that the subsequent prost ctLtio:r of the appellar rt in FIR No. 1 14 of 2008 dated 9- 1 1-20013 rs completely unsustz.inable. In the result, the FIR deLted 9-10-2008, the orders rtated l8-I2-2O15, 31-5- 201,i and tle irnpugned order are set aside. The appeal is al1owed.

¶65

In t-re light of the afore-quoted facts. if ploceecings are permittr:d to continue, it would amount to abuse oi tht: process of the lz w and result in miscarriage of^justi:e." 1 1 . In the instant case also initially Petr Y^{Ci SC \A'AS} registered atlainst the petitioner uide Crirne No. .6 cf 2013 and charg€ sheet rvas also filed, which \I,as taken cognizance imd numbered as C.C.No.94 ol 2Ol3 and at the time of his :xamination, the petitioner was pl:ade,1 guilty and he <sup>ras convicted and sentenced to t,ay arr amount of RS.100/- fo'the offence punishable undrrr Se:t.on 290 of IPC and Rs.t200/- for the offence punishal)le under Section 5O4 of IPC errd the petitioner/accused had p.ri,l the said

¶66

1 l2O2Ol 3 Suprer !e Court Cases 54

¶67

¶68

¶69

amount. The record further reveals that as per the orders of this Court in Criminal Petition No.4809 of 20 13, fresh crlme was registered uide F.I.R.No.29 of 2014 and conducted reinvestigation. After examining the eye witnesses to the incident and after completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani and the said charge sheet was taken cognizance as C.C.No.2B of 2015 against the petitioner/accused.

¶70

In view of the aforesaid discussion and having regard to the fact that the petitioner was convicted for the charges leveled against the petitioner for the same incident ald the present proceedings are based on the charge sheet filed in the second F.I.R. registered in connection with the same incident, this Court is of the view that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.28 of 2015 amounts to sheer abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed.

¶71

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.28 of 2015 on

¶72

¶73

the lile the learned .ludicial Magistrate. of First Class, Manthani ar: hereby quashed.

¶74

Miscellmeous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶75

closed.

¶76

Sd/. V. KAVITHA ASSISTIINT REGISTRAR

¶77

¶78

I\l //TRUE COPY// :iE:CTION OFFICER

¶79

To,

¶80

The Judicial First Class Magistrate,at Manthani.
2. The Station llouse Officer Police Station Manthani Karimnagar [)ist.
3. Two CCs To Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of T()langana at
Hyderabad [( )UT]
4. One CC to SRl. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Advocate IOPUCI
5. One CC to Sltl. P V NAGAMANI Advocate [OPUC]
6. Two CD Cop es
RUBI

HIGH COUF:T. DATED:131(t912023

¶86

ORDER

¶87

CRLP.No.9i,36 of 2015

¶88

s TAI'E O
I
t?
I
F,
t :1
1\ tt\ Tts
J .i
\ .l.
t. . r,r '!t "r .i
'=-: . l et;:..--:-- '"

¶89

CRIMINAL PBTITION

¶90

IS ALLOWI Dr

¶91

6H!"b "9,9-fi,"ht

Vanguluri Suresh, Karimnagar v. Public Prosecutor, Karimnagar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanguluri Suresh, Karimnagar v. Public Prosecutor, Karimnagar and Another

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

Patnam Sai Kumar, Dilsukhnagar Vs P.S., Uppal, Hyd

Hanuman Joshi, Secbad Vs M. Dilip Kumar Desai, Secbad and Ano

Katikireddy Sriram Reddy Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

M.Danam, Rc Puram, Medak District Vs T.Srinivas, Medak District and Another, Rep.by P.P, High Court

Thurpu Nirmala and 8 Others Vs K.Sathyanarayana and Another

Punreddy Narender Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana