Dismissed

Bommakanti Yadagiri, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Jun 2023CRLRC/123/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Telangana dismissed a Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 CrPC against an order dismissing a discharge petition. The Court held that allegations of obstruction, threats, and abuse attracted offences under Sections 353 and 506 IPC, making it fit for trial.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 CrPC was dismissed with merits due to presence of sufficient material for trial.

Bommakanti Yadagiri, Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 123 OF 2023

¶8

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C against the Order dated 02.01.2023 inCrl.M.P.No. 1295of 2019 inC.C.No.4812of 2018 onthefileof the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court-cum- IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-lV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Bommakanti Yadagiri,, S/o. Late Lachaiah, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Construction Business, R/o. H.No.1043, Plot No. 338, Road No. 12, Near Astalaxmi Temple, Vasavi Colony, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District

¶11

...PETITIONERYACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana,, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana and AP

¶14

B. Sathyanarayana,, S/o. Not known to complainant, Age. Major, Occ. S.l. df Police, PS Chaitanyapuri, Rachakonda.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2023

¶17

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 maybe} pleased to stay all further^{proceedings in c.c.No . 4812 of 2018 on the file of lV} 'fVletropotitan lr/agistrate, cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, till the disposal of criminal Revision Petition.

¶18

counsel for the Petitioner^{:sri JALLI KANAKATAH, Senior counsel for sri M.} LAXMAN RAO

¶19

Counsel for the^{ResPondentNo.1: Sri S. GANESH,ASSISTANTPUBLIC} PROSECUTOR

¶20

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.2 : None appeared}

¶21

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶22

H ON'BL[] SMT. .IUS'I'ICE G. ;\Ntl PANL\ C lI {KIIAVARI'H Y CRIMINAL RIiVISION CAS!l No.l23 of 2023

¶23

ORDIiR:

¶24

This revision is filcd against the order datetl 02.01 .202-l in Crl.MP.No.1295 of 2019 in C.C.No.4Sl2 ol 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court-cunr-lV Additional Junior CiviI Judge-curn-lV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

¶25

Heard Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned Scnior Counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1.

¶26

The petitioner was arrayed as accused in C.C.No.48 I 2 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga I{eddy at L.B.Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of IPC. He filed Crl.Mp.No.l295 of 2019 seeking lbr his discharge from the said case, which is rlismissed by u,ay of impugned order dated OZ.OI .2023.

¶27

)

¶28

G1(..1 (it. R. ( .,\ tt. r 2 -t ttf 202.]

¶29

The facts of the case in briefl, afu that one B. Satyanamyana, Sub-lnspector of police, Chaitanyapuri police Station has filed a complaint against the pctitioner on 0g.0g.2015 alleging rhat on rhe said date, the petitioner has obstructed him frorn discharging his official duties and also threatened h.im. Therefore, a case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of IPC.

¶30

It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner that the ingredients of Sections 353 and 506 of Ipc are not made out from the cornplaint and even the 16l Cr.p.Cstaternent of the de focto conplainant does not disclose the elements of assault or criminal force, and therefore, prayed to discharge the petitioner frorn the alleged offences under Sections 353 and 506 of IPC. In support of his contentions, the leamed Senior Counsel has relied on the following^judgrnents :

¶31

In Manik Taneja and another v. State of Karnataka and anotherr, wherein, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under^:

¶32

"The cssential ingredients of the^{offence under Section 353} IPC are that the^{person accuscd of tlie ofGncc shouldhave}

¶33

'^{2otsLawsuit(sc)s2}

¶34

¶35

(; 1('. J Crl.R.CNo.l2.t^{of 2023}

¶36

¶37

assaultcd the^{public scrvalltor uscd criminaltiltcc rvith the} i,.t",rtlon to^{prevcnt or detcr tho publicsen'ant tiom} ai."fru.gi.g^{his r.lutyas suchpublic scrvant-By perusing the} nratcria"k available^{on rcoord, it appcarsthat trtt tirrce uas} used by the appellants^{to commitsuchan ofl'encc Thcre is} absoluiety notiring^{on record to sho\l'that tlie appcllants either} assaulteithe^{respondents or usedcriminal tbrcc to prevetlt the} second respondent^{from discharging his oflicialduty Taking} the uncontroverted^{allegations'inour vie*', that the} ingredients ofthe offencc^{under Section 35J IPC are not made} out.

¶38

It is the intcntion of^{the accusedthat has to be considercdin} deciding as to whether what^{he hasstated corncswithin the} meaning of "Criminal intimidation".^{The threatmust he rvith} intention to cause alarm to^{the complainantto causc that} person to do or omit to do any work. Merc exprcssion^o1'any words without any intention to^causealann 'uvould^{ntlt be} sufficient to bring in the application ol this section.^But material has to be placed on record to shou'that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appcars that thcre was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alann in the minds of the second respondcnt causing obstruction in discharge ofhis duty."

¶39

In Manoj v. State of Kerala2, wherein, it is hetd bv the Kerala High Court as under:

¶40

The Explanation to Section 351 itsetf will be an an:,wer to it because it would say specifically thaf ,,Mere words <io not amount to an assault." But il at all the words gave any gestures. or preparation, it may nrake thosc gcltures or preparation amount to an assault.'But words allegei in the FIS do€s not speak about any gestures or any p.cpa.:ation r., rnot" rnose geslures amounting to.assauh. So the alicged assaull are quite short of attraoing rhe olfence ,"d.. S;;; jiJ'ro ,, ,o amount to assault or use of-criminal fir.""......H.,*ro, tn" question remains is only whether ,h" ;ti;;^;l'i', ,n"

¶41

2 crl, MC.No.42gO of ZOtg, dt.2i.11.2021

¶42

¶43

G.IC. .l Crl.R.(.,\i.l23 of 20 ).)

¶44

petitiolrer amount k) an &ssault or use of criminal lorcc in caffying out thc en(luil] procccdings oi thc de 1act0 complainant or not ? On going through thc cntirc allegations in the FIS as rightly contended by the leamcd counscl, the words uttercd would not arnount to an assault as contemplatcd under Section 351 or usc of crirninal force so as to deter the de facto cornplainarlt from carrying out thc enquiry proceedirgs...... There is no allegation at all to the de facto complainant about tlle use ol any crimirlal tbrce apart frorr the statcment torvards thc cnd of FIS that only because of thc fact that her co-n'orkcrs wcre also thcre. accuscd Nos.l and 2 did not attack her. But can be takcn only as an assumption of the de facto complainant without any basis because she has no whispcr in the FIS that the pctitioner herein made any preparation or gestures so as to attack her. So evaluating the facts and circumstanccs. l anr of the considered^{view thateven} if the entire allegations in thc FIS is adrnittod in^{toto, therc are} no materials to attract thc ingredicnts^{of the ofl'ence under} Section 353 IPC....."

¶45

".....So, in order to attract^{thcoff-enccunder Section 506,the} accused should have^{threatened anotherwithany injury to his} person, reputation o[^{propertyor to the personor reputation ol} anyon" in whom^{that personis interestedwith intention to} cairse alarm to^{that pcrsonor to cause that personto do any} act which he^{is not legally bound to do or omitted to do any} act which that^{person is legally entitled to do as thc mearsof} avoiding^{the executionofGcihreats' Here'the wordsalleged} is that "I^{will shorv you' You will havc to facethe} There is^{nothingin thc.} 1bov1,.;vyi^s -rto "on.ofu"n"".". inai.ul,nu,^{the threateningwits to causcinjury elther to Ine} ".r""t ".^{,"o","tion of tlre tle lactocomplainantor of causing} the irrtention^{of hcrself ornitting to do anv} ;irr-;;;;;tih ,.,'*fri"ft.it"^{tt legally cntitlcdto do' I-Icre the words uttered} i;*ii;itl^{;;;""u,""unviniury to the rcputationof the de facto} or it app"urs^{to have madc with the intentron} ;;;ilil CRL.M.C-4290/2019^{to cause alarnr to t1l"} d;in"^{o'at urrcrcd arc lar shortol} "--^l1t"^atlractrns :#ilil; any criminal^{intirnidatronas contemplatedunder Section503} ofthe^code."

¶46

¶47

G-IC, J Crl. ll.C. No.^I2 3 d^202-i

¶48

-7

¶49

-.i.^{In Mr. Satish v. Stateof Karnataka3, wlterein,it is held} by the Karnataka High Court^{as under;}

¶50

"The word 'assauh' as defined^{in section351 nleansmakirtg of} a gosture or^preparation intending^{or knowingit to be likely} that the^gesture or the^{preparationwill causeapprchcnsiotr in} the mind of another^{person. that criminalforce will be uscd} against him. The illustrations^{to sectionsl-i0 and351 IPC} make the rneaning of words 'criminal^{force'and'assault' very} clear. [n common^parlance, the word 'assault'^{is understoodas} 'one^{personbeating another personwith or withoutweapon'.} But this common parlance meaning cannot be ernployed rvhile examining the FIR to find out whether an offence under section 353 IPC is made out or not, in the given set ol circumstances. [n the case on hand, the third respondent lias made three allegations as exkacted above. First allegation is that the petitioner posted certain messagcs in awku,ard language. The second one pertains to putting threat to him in case he did not agree for his demands and that the third one is again putting threat to getting him transferred to another place in case he attended to the work of anybody whorn the petitioner did not like. These allegations do not Jisclose cithcr using criminal force or making assault.,,

¶51

On the other hand, it is contended by the leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor that there is amplb evidence on record and it is a matter of trial to decide whether any case is made out against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 353 and 506 of IPC. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶52

7 The point, which arise for determination in this case is:

¶53

No.6B8o of 2O2q dt. Og.O4.2022

¶54

¶55

c.tc. J (-rl. R.C..\o.l 23 o1 2023

¶56

"Whether the triaj Court is right in disniissing rlie disclrarge petition and whether the ingredients of Sections 353 and 506 oflPC are made out against the petitioner/accusecl, frorn the tnaterial available on record ?,,

¶57

In the judgrnent relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner in Manik Taneja's case ( I supra), since no fbrce was applied for causing obstruction in discharging the official duties of 2nd respondent therein, the Hon,bte Supreme Court held that the ingredients of Section 353 of IpC are not made out. But, the facts of the present case stand on different footing. as the contents of the complaint and the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. show that on 08.08.201 5, the petitioner/accused went to Chaitanyapuri Police Station along with one lady by name Indira, discussed about the old case o[ said Indira and stated to the Police that he is having influence at high level political leaders. He threatened that he is a crime r€porter and that he will show live report about Police and also abused the Police ir^{filthylanguage} and thus obstructed the duties of the^de focto^{cotnplainant'who} was on duty at that time.

¶58

¶59

GI(,J Crl.!l.C.No-t^{23 ol )023}

g. The above^{contentsattract the essential ingredientso1' the} offences^{punishable under Sections353 and506 of IPC' 'l'houghit} is contended^{by the petitionerthat he did not threatenor obstruct} the de facto^{complainant from discharging his officialiluties'} ^,hether^{the petitioner has actually committedsuch offences or not'} can only^{be decided after a fuIl-fledgedtrial' Therefore' it is nota} fit case for^{discharging the petitionerat this stag€'}

¶64

10 For the aforesaid^{reasons'this revisioncase is devoid of} merits and it^{is accordinglydismissed'}

¶65

Pending miscellaneous^{applications, ifany, shallstand}

¶66

ctosed.

¶67

Sd/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special^{Mobile Court-cum- lV} Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-lV^{Additional MetropolitanMagistrate,} Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.^(with records)

¶72