Dismissed

Kandala Prabhakar Reddy v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Feb 2024CRLP/2033/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An ex-MLA accused of assaulting and abusing a TSSPDCL lineman discharging official duties sought quashing of C.C. No.104 of 2023 under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court found prima facie allegations serious with triable factual issues and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kandala Prabhakar Reddy Vs the State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2033 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kandala Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. Late Ramakrishna Reddy, Aged about 87 years, Occ. Ex.MLA and Home Minster/Agriculture, R/o. H-No.8-2-293, B2lU231-NC, Road No.12, Extension tVLAs Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034.

¶9

... Petitioner/Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶12

Pulluri Ravinder, S/o. Venkatiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Lineman (TSSPDCL), Rl/o. Plot No.141lA, Srinivasapuram Colony, Hasthinapuram, Vanasthalipuram, Saroomagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

...Respondents

¶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 quash the CC No.104 of 2O23 on the file of Honble XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Rachakonda at Hayathnagar for the offences under section 332 of IPC as the same is untenable either on facts or under law.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 482 o'f 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 pursuant to CC No.104 of 2023 on the file of Hon'ble XIV Additional [/etropolitan Magistrate Rachakonda at Hayathnagar, for the offences under section 332 of IPC including appearance of Petitioner pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition in the interest of^justice.

¶17

^ This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri K. praceep Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Mutyara Muraridhar, Additionar pubric Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri R. Vinod Re:ddy, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAI(SHMAN

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2O3 3 0F 2023

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard Mr. K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mutyala Muralidhar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.l - State and Mr. R. Vinod Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶23

The present Criminal Petition is hled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 104 of 2023 pending on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rachakonda at Ha_vathnagar.

¶24

- The petitioner herein is arraigned as sole accused in the aforesaid C.C. The oflence alleged against him is punishable under Section 332 of IPC. Respondent No.2 herein is the de facto^{cornplainant, who lodgedthe report with} the^police against the petitioner herein.

¶25

¶26

KL' J CrI.P No.2033 of 2023

¶27

The case of the prosecution is as under;

¶28

i) LW. | - de facto complainant is working as a Linemal (Employee ID No.lo775l1) in TSSPDCL at Abdullapurmet Mandal Section. On 11.01.2023 at about 12.00 hours, LW. t visited the accused site situated at Survey No.269, Koheda Revenue near Gandicheruvu Village, Abdllapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for conducting enquiry for providinl3 commercial meter or domestic meter pursuant to thr: compiaint reference No.678223367 108, dated 29.72.2O2. ^tlne petitioner herein, lr.h o is the owner of the a_foresaid site cam,r to LW.1 and questioned him. Then, LW. 1 replied that he is:r Lineman and shor.ved his ID Card. Then, the petitioner aske<l LW. 1 u,hat he is doing inside his (petitioner) site and abuse<l him (LW.l) in filthy language saying as "ds"$ d. Sd5ls" efSOil JodSoSo $r);o"$o" ood.Sd6s." (useless fellow, Lanjakodaka why did vou come inside.). LW.1 requested the petitioner nol to abuse him stating that he came there as part of dischargr: of his official dutv. Without hearing the request made b.,, LW. l, petitioner stated that if he calls the Chairman of TSSPDCL, he ri'ill come to him. The petitioner slapped LW. L :.. -:

¶29

¶30

KL, J Crl.P No.2033 of 2023

¶31

four times by holding his collar. He also damaged the earphones of LW. 1. Thus, the petitioner abused LW. I in filthy language, assaulted on him and obstructed him from discharging his official duties. LW. 1 took treatment in Malogna Multi-Specialty Hospital at Abdullapurmet. The said incident was witnessed by LWs.2 and 3 - Masons, who '"r,ere^{r,r'orkingat the site} and LW.4, watchman of the site.

¶32

ii) On receipt of the report from LW.l, the police (LW.g) registered a case in Crime No.27 of 2023 for the offence under Section 332 of IPC against the petitioner herein and took up investigation. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein and the same rvas taken on file vide C.C. No.1O4 of 2023 by learned XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayathnagar.

¶33

Nou', the petitioner fited the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. on the follo,,ving gro unds;

¶34

i) The report iodged by LW. 1 is a motivated one ar the instance of third party i.e., M/s. K.S. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. in collusion with police;

¶35

¶36

I:L, J CrI.P No.2033 of:1023

¶37

ii) The petitioner is the absolute owner and^possesior of land admeasuring Acs.4.35 guntas in^{Sy.No.269,rA,} situated at Koheda Village, Abdullapurmet^Manclal, Ranga Reddy District. M/s. KMS Constructions^[Vt. Ltd., insisted the petitioner to alienate the^propertyin its favour, for which the petitioner did not accept. Therefore, the said Company influenced the police zrld accordingly, the police tried to dispossess the^petitioner from the aforesaid land. Then, the petitioner hled a v;rit petition vide W.P. No.27261 of 2022 belore this Court to declare the action of police in interfering rvith his possession as iIlegal. This Court vide orders 04.O8.2O22 directed the police not to interfere r'r'ith the petitioner's property and the said t-rit petition is pending;

¶38

iii) Having failed in the a-foresaid acts, the said Compaly in collusion with the police got lilecl the present complaint through LW.1;

¶39

iv) The petitioner made al online application to TSSPDCL vide No.CC67a223367 t]a, dated 29.12.2022 for change of Category-Il to Category-l of Sy.No.269/A. As per the Electricity Act and Rules, the Distribution Engineer/Additional Assistant trngineer/ Assistant Division Engineer is the authorized person to conduct enquiry/ test. The role of a Lineman is only to act € s a witness to such enquiry/test report of the s,aid

¶40

¶41

KL, J Crl.P No 2O33 or 2023

¶42

application. Therefore, respondent No.2 herein is not authorized to discharge his duty to conduct an enquiry in respect of the application of the petitioner;

¶43

v) The medico legal case record issued by LW.7 does

¶44

not bear any date and, therefore the same is created for the purpose of present case;

¶45

vi) There is no witness to the alleged incident;

¶46

vii) The petitioner is aged about 87 years, suffering from old age ailments and he served the people and was Ex.MLA and former Home Minister;

¶47

viii) The contents of the charge sheet are lacking the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioner herein; and

¶48

ix) Therefore, continuation of proceedings is nothing

¶49

but al abuse of process of law and, therefore, the same are liable to be quashed.

¶50

On the other hand, learned Additionai public prosecutor u'ould contend that the Investigating Officer after conducting investigation thoroughly laid the charge sheet. The contenrs of the charge sheet constitute the offence alleged against the petitioner herein. It is not the stage to quash the proceedings. If the petitioner is innocent o[ the offence

¶51

¶52

KI,, J CrI.P No.2033^{of 2o23}

¶53

alleged against^{him, he has toprove his innocencerly} proceeding with trial,^{but not at this stage' There are sevel'al} factual aspects^{which will be consideredby the trial Cottrt} during trial.^{Therefore,he sought to dismiss the present} petition.

¶54

7 . Mr. R. Vinod^{Reddy,learned counsel for respondt:nt} No.2 would^{also contendthat there is no animositybetween} the petitioner and^{respondent No.2 u'ho lodged a report with} the police.^{Since the petitioner obstructed respondent N'l'2} from discharging^{his legal duq'' by beating him, he lodged'}te} report with^{police. Whether the allegationsleveled against.Lhe} petitioner are false or^{true,and rt'hetherthe contentsof the} charge sheet constitute^{arr offence, etc', are all triable issr:es} which are to^{be decided onl5r after full-fledgedtria1, but not at} this stage. The^{presentpetitionis premature one ald as} such, the same^{is liableto be dismissed'}

¶55

The afore-stated^facts "r'ould^{reveal that respondentI[o'2} (LW.1) is a line-man^{w'orking in TSSPDCL'According to tLim'} he went to the^{subject propertYon 11.01.2O23 at about 121-OO} hours as part of^{his olficialduty to conduct enquiry on the}

¶56

¶57

¶58

I(L, J Crl P No.2033 of2023

¶59

complaint reference No.CC6Z\22336710B dated 29. 12.2022, to check whether commercial meter can be given or a domestic meter can be accorded to the current meter. The petitioner/accused obstructed him while discharging his official duties arrd abused him by use of aforesaid filthy language. He has also slapped LW. 1 four times by holding his collar. The incident was rvitnessed by LWs.2 and 3 _ Masons and LW.4 - Watchman of the subject site.

¶60

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the contents of the charge sheet afe lacking ingredients of Section 332 of I.P.C. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.104 of 2023 pending on the file of learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Rachakonda at Hayathnagar, are liable to quasheci.

¶61

10' In the light of the aforesaid submission, it is relevant to note that Section 332 of I. p.C_ deals rvith voluntaqr causing hurt to deter public servant from his dutt. It says,

¶62

'Section.332 - u,hoever voluntaril_v causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servar-rt, olur,ith intent to

¶63

¶64

¶65

,{L, J Crl.P No.2033^{of 2023}

¶66

prevent or deter that^{personor any other public} servant from^{discharginghis duty as such public} servant, or in^{consequenceof anything done or} attempted to be^{done by that person in the lawful} discharge of his duty^{as such public servant,shall} be punished with^{imprisonment ofeither} description for a term^{whichmay extend to three} years, or lvith fine, or with both."

¶67

1 1. There is no dispute^{that LW. 1 is a publicservant'He is} a line-man rvorking^{in TSSPDCLsince last (32) years arrd} since last (lVzl^{year, he is working in Abdullapurmet Section'} There is no dispute^{i'vithregard to the said fact.}

¶68

It is relevant to^{note that Section21 of I'P.C.defines} public servart. (12) classes^{of public servants were referred} in the said provision.^{LW. 1 falls under12e category i'e',} Every person; in the^{service or pay of a local authority, a} corporation established^{by or under a Central,Provincizd or} State Act or a Government^{companyas defined in Section617} of the Companies^{Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).Admittr:dly,} TSSPDCL is a corporation^{constitutedunder astatute'} Therefore, for all practical^{purposes, LW. 1 is a publicser/ant'}

¶69

¶70

KL, J Crl.P No.2033 ot 2023

¶71

Thus, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that contents of charge sheet lacks ingredients of offence atleged against the petitioner i.e., Section 332 of I.P.C., is unsustainable.

¶72

According to LW. 1, the petitioner/accused prevented him from discharging his duties, abused him in hlthy language and stapped him four times by holding his collar. The same rvas r.r'itnessed by LWs.2 and 3 _ Masons and LW.4 -^{Watchman.Therefore,} prima facie, there are serious allegations against the petitioner herein and the contents of charge sheet, including statements of LWs.1 to 4, constitute the olfence alleged against the petitioner herein.

¶73

The contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property; there are disputes with petitioner and M / s. KMS Constructions private Limited; pendencv of rvrit petition, etc., and that the petitioner w,as implicated by rhe said company in collusion with LW. 1, are the factual aspects u'hich cannot be considered by this Court under.S€ction 482 of Cr.p.C. The petitioner has to face trial

¶74

¶75

IiL, J Crl.P No.2033 of 2023

¶76

and the said aspects can be considered by the trial Court on conducting a full-fledged trial.

¶77

Further contention of the learned counsel appearing lor the petitioner is that LW.l being a line-man, does not have power to go to the subject site for the purpose of enquiry with regard to complaint dated 29.12.2022, as to u,hether a commercial or domestic meter can be given to the curr,:nt meter, since the same is not within the domain ol LW. 1.

¶78

Further, Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ accused, referring to proceedings dated 31.05.1994, would submit that LW.l, being a line-m,an, cannot conduct such an enquiry. Vide the said proceedings, the erstwhile APSEB fixed the work-load norms, duties a.nd responsibilities of various workmen in operation end maintenance of lines, Sub-Stations, distributions, etc.^'l-he conduct of enquiry with regard to issuance of commercial or domestic meter is not within the domain of line-men as cer the said proceedings dated 31.05.1994.

¶79

¶80

KLJ Crl.P No.2033 of 2O23

¶81

However, the same is a factual aspect and the petitioner has to take the said defense/contention during the trial. Opportunity will be given to him to elicit the same from LW. 1 as to being a line-man, whether he is entitled to conduct enquiry on the said aspects or not. The said factual aspects cannot be considered in a petition under Sectio n 4g2 of Cr.P.C

¶82

The further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that LW. 1 is not an authorized person to conduct such an enquiry, cannot be considered in the present petition filed under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C and it is for the trial Court to consider the said aspect.

¶83

It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing lor the petitioner that the petitioner/accused is aged about g7 years and suffering with several old_age ailments; he is an Ex_ M.L.A. and former Home Minister and he is implicated in a false case by the aforesaid company and in collusion rvith LW. 1, etc. The said aspects cannot be grounds to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.104 of 2023. prima facie, all the allegations levelled against him are serious and thev are

¶84

¶85

KL, J Crl.P No.2033^of2l23

¶86

specific^{overt acts and statementsof the ''itness disclose the} sarne.

¶87

In the^{light of the aforesaid discussion'on the si{d} grounds, the^{proceedings against the petitionerin C'C'No'104} of 2023 cannot^{be quashed'}

¶88

21,. As discussed^{supra, in the present case' there are the} following^{factualasPects}

¶89

and M/s.^KMS

¶90

I Disputes^{between the} Petltloner Construction^{Private Limited with} regard to^subiect property.

¶91

ii. Whether^{LW.1, being aline-man' rsauthorizedto} conduct enquiry^{as to granting commercial or dome'stic} meter to the^subject ProPertv

¶92

111 Medical^{record issuedb-r" LW 7 is created}

¶93

lV. The statements^{givenb1' LWs' 1 to 4 and the contents of} the same.

¶94

The duties^{and responsibilities of line-man'}

¶95

They are triable^{issuesThus, the same cannot be} considered^inan application^{liled under Section 482 of} Cr.P.C

¶96

¶97

KL, J Crl P No.2033 of 2023

¶98

¶99

It is settled law by the^{Hon'Lrle Apex Court and this} Court, in a catena^{of decisions that this Court has to exercise} its inherent powers under^{Section482 of Cr.P.C.in rarest of} rare cases that too, to^{prevent abuse of processof law' When} there are triable issues on factual^{aspects, this Court cannot} exercise the said inherent^po\'er. Quashing^{of proceedings in} a calendar case at the threshold,^{more particularly, where} there are several factual aspects,^{is not proper.The said} principle was also iaid dorrn by the^{Hon'ble Apex Court in} State of Haryana^{v.Bhajan Lalr, M/s.Neeharika} Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.^{v.State ofMaharashtraand} others2 and AP Mahesh^{CooperativeUrban Bank} Shareholders Welfare^{Association v. Ramesh KumarBung} and others:.

¶100

Viewed from any^angle, the^{present criminal petition is} liable to be dismissed

¶101

Accordingly, the Criminal^{Petition is dismissed'}

¶102

'^{AIR 1992 sc 604} t AIR 2o2t sc l9l8

¶103

3 Livelaw 2021 SC 309

¶104

¶105

KL. J Crl.P No.2033 of 20:13

¶106

¶107

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if^{any, pending in}

¶108

the criminal petition shall stand closed.

¶109

Sd/. V. KryITHA ASSTSTANT#STRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

The XIV^{AdditionalMetropolitanMagi.strate',Rachakonda'at Hayathnagar'} 2.TheStationnouse-b-fiiui,noa",rr,p,rmetPoliceStation,-Racnakonda

¶114

a. ?;;X'3c.^{ro the pubtrc prosecutor, High court for the State of retarganaat} Hvderabad. [OUT] a 6l,i,"cCIJ^{Siik 'er.aoeepReddv' Advocat^e-tpfucl} 5. 6;; Cc^{i" s" R. vinod R'eddv'Advocate [OPUCI}

¶115