Dismissed

Jarpula Ramulu v. The state of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jul 2024CRLP/2787/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash an order taking cognizance under Sections 307 and 354 IPC. The Court held that the trial Magistrate can independently form an opinion and is not bound by the Investigating Officer's opinion or the alteration memo deleting these sections.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; cognizance order under Sections 307 and 354 IPC maintained.

Jarpula Ramulu Vs The state of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

[^338s I

i I

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE^{TENTH DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FOUR}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICEK. SUJANA}

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITIO^{N NO: 2787 OF 2024}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Jarpula Ramulu,^{S/o Late Seetharam' Aged 62 years'occ.Bank service, R/o} 8-1-17137, Padmanagar^{Colony, Saroor NagarMandal,R'R' District'}

¶11

Jarpula Daya Kiran,^{s/o J. Ramulu,Aged 33 years,occ. Government Service} No 8-1-17i37 Padmanagar^{Colony' Saroornagar lvlandal, R'R District'}

¶12

3.JarpulaPadma,W/oJ.Ramulu,Aged60yrsocc.Homeltlaker,Fl/o8.,117137 , Padmanagar^{Colony, Saroornagar lvlandal,R R District}

¶13

Kethavat^{Naresh_,S/o Balraj,Aged 31 yrs Occ. Pvt.Service,No 8-1-17137'} Padmanagar Colony,^{Saroornagar Mandal, R R- District,}

¶14

5.^pathalavaih Rajender^{Naik alias Rajender, S/o LakshmanNaik,Aged 38 yrs,} Occ.Pvt.employee,serviceR/o2-l4,DhararamLingaia,Mahaboobnagar District.

¶15

Patalavath Devender,^{s/o LaxmanNaik, Aged 43 yrs, occ. Privateservice} Rto 3-54126, Banjara^{Street, Lingala, Mahaboobnagar District'}

¶16

Smt. P. Shantha,^{W/o Devender,Aged 30 yrs Occ. HouseWife, R/o8-1-} 17 t37 , Padmanagar Colony,^{Saroornagar Mandal,R'R District'}

¶17

Jarpula Santhosh,^{S/o Jarpula Ramulu, Aged 37 yrs' Occ Govt, Employee'} Fl/o Govt., Quarters,^{MissionBhagiratha, Kalvakurthy, Nagarkurnool District.}

¶18

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED^{No.1, 2, 3, 8' 9, 10' 11 & 12}

¶19

AND

¶20

'1 . The state of Telangana, PS Saroornagar through Public Prosecutor

¶21

Rachakonda District'

¶22

...RES'.NDENT

¶23

Smt. Nenavath Mathri^{Bai, Wo Thourya Naik, Aged 46 yrs, Occ House Wife,} Caste ST(Lambada)^{Ri"/o Karibari Thanda Village,lvlallepally Mandal,} Nalgonda District Presently^{Residing H.No. B-1-17137,Padma Nagar Colony,} Karmanghat, Saroornagar^{Mandal, R.R.District(T.S)}

¶24

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO^COMPLAINANT

¶25

Smt.Jarpula Radha,^{Dio NanavathThourya,Aged about 32 years, Occ'} Software Engineer, R/o^{H.No. 8'1-912113a, Kranthi Nagar, Near DPA School,} Karmanghat, Saroornagar,^{K.V. Ranga Reddy District'}

¶26

...RESPONDENT/VICTIM

¶27

Petition under section^{482 of cr.P.cpraying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminal Petition,the High court may} o" pr"r."o to set^{aside the ordersin PRC No.63/2020on the file of V Additional} lvteiropolitan tvlagistrate^{taking an cognizanceof the offensesso far as 307and} 354 tPC and^{consequentlydirect the aforesaidV AdditionalMetropolitan} Magistrate to take^{cognizanieof the case as calendarcase (cc) by converting} the PRC and^{try the same in accordancewith law'}

¶28

I.A. N O:2 OF 2024

¶29

Petition under section^{482 of cr.P.cpraying that in the crrcumstances} stated in the lVlemorandum^{of Groundsof Criminal Petition,the HighCourt may be} pieased to grant stay of the committal^{proceedings in PRCNo.63/2020 on the file} of V Additional^{Meiropolitan Magistrate R.R District at L.B Nagar Hyderabad,} pending disposal of^{quash petition.}

¶30

ThisPetitionComingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandumof Grounds of criminal^{Petitionand upon hearingthe arguments of sri Nimma} Narayana, Advocale^{for the Petitionersand the Assistant Public Prosecutoron} Oenaif of the Respondent^{No.1 and Sri K.RameshBabu, Advocatefor the} Respondent No.2.

¶31

The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2787 OF 2024

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Criminal Petition is hled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.J by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1, 2, 3,8,9, 1O, 11 and 12 praying to quash the order passed in PRC.No.63 of 2O2O on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 307 and 354 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPCJ.

¶35

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 1,2,3,8,9, 10, 11 and 12 in PRC.No.63 of 2O2O at the behest of respondent No.3 ,ide Crime NO.4O7 of 2Ol9 registered for offence punishable under Sections 448, 323,5O4, 506, 354, 427,307 read with Section 3 of IPC. It is stated that during the course of investigation, on 21.O1.2O2O an alteration memo was filed by Saroornagar Police Station, before the VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at LB.Nagar, deleting the Sections 354 and 3O7 of IPC on the basis of the evidence collected by them during investigation. It is alleged that the trial Court has

¶36

.<a

¶37

¶38

SKS,J Crl.P No.27ll7 Otr 20221

¶39

taken cognizance of the case filed against the petitioner, even for the offences punishable under 354 and 307 of IPC), apart from the other olfences for which the charge sheet was filed by the Police.

¶40

It is averred that the petitioners submitted petiti,:rn uide Crl.MP.No.9O of 2O2O seeking deletion of Sections 3ll4 and 3O7 of IPC rrghich were wrongly taken cognizance, but the said petition was returned as not maintainable uide orders; dated 27-O1.2022. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed Crl.RP.No. 19 of 2022 which was disposed of directing the petitioners to resubmit the petition filed uide Crl.Mp.Nc,.90 of 2022 before the concerned Magistrate Court, along wit.h their explanation about the maintainability of the said petition, and on said resubmission, the concerned Magistrate Court has to dispose of the same on merits by giving one opportuniq, to all the concerned. However, when the petitioners resubmitted the said petition explaining its maintainability, the same was also dismissed. Therefore, being aggrieved by the cognizance taken against the petrtioners for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 3O7 of IPC, this Criminal Petition is filed.

¶41

¶42

SKS,J Crl.t'No.2787 OF²⁰²⁴

¶43

Hcard Sri Nimma^{Narayana,learned counselfor} petitioners, Sri S.Ganesh, learned^{Assistant PublicProsecutor,} appearing for respondent^No.1 -^{State,and Sri K'Ramesh} Babu, learned counsel^{for respondentNo.2.}

¶44

Learned counsel for^{petitionerssubmitted that while} taking cognizance of the^{case, the trial Courthas not} considered the evidence^{collectedby the Police duringthe} course of investigation.^{He contended that the charge sheet} clearly indicates that the^{compactdisk (for short 'CD') was} seized from the^{possessionof the accused No'2 undercover of} confessional panchanama^{and it alsorevealsthat} LW.2 - Radha, herself^{has consumed pesticide and there is no} role of petitioners in^{this regard.He asserted that thoughit is} mandatory for^{any Magistrate takingcogntzanceto applymind} to the allegations^{madein the complaintor in the Police report} and the material^{placed thereof,in the present case, the trial} Court has took cognizance^{of the offencespunishable under} Sections 44a,^{323,5O4, 506, 354, 427,307read with Section} 34 IPC, though^{the charge sheet was filed for offences} punishable under Sections^{448, 323, 5O4, 5o6 read with} Section 747, 149^{of IPC.}

¶45

¶46

SKS,J Crl.P.No 27a'l OI.' 2024

¶47

Learned counsel for petitioners incessantly contended that the charge sheet indicates that CCTV footage^{of house of} LW. 1 was collected by the SI of Police - LW.l2 and a-.so^the Inspector of Police - LW. i I which was converted into CID and the same would disclose that the LW.2 - Radha has herself consumed the pesticide but the said evidence which was collected by the Police at the time of investigation,^was not taken into account by the trial Court. In support of ttre said contention, reliance was placed upon the paragraph No.17 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchalr which reads as follows:

¶48

"17.^{Nevertheless,it is well settled that} before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or the information received from a source other than a police report, as the case may be, and the material hted therewith. [t needs little emphasis that it is

'1zooa1^{rz scc rsz}

SKS,J Crt^{1'.No2787OF202J}

¶53

onty^{when theMagistrat€ appliesfus} rnintl^{and is satishedthat the allegations'if} proved,^{rvouldconstitute anoffenceand} decides^{to initiate proceedingsagainstthe} alleged^{offender' that itcan be positively} stated^{that he has takencogniz'anceof the} offence.^{Cognizanceis lnregard tothe} oflence^{and nol lhe offender'"}

¶54

Learned^{counsel for petitioners reiteratedthat the trial} court^{erred in takingcognizanceagainstthe petitionersunder} Sections^{354 and 3o7 of IPc. Therefore' prayedthis court to} quash^{the order passed in PRC'No'63 of 2O2O'}

¶55

B On lhe^{otherhand' the learned counselfor respondent} No.2^{submittedthatthereis no illegality in the order passed} taking^{cogrizarrceagainst the} tn PRC.No.63^of2O2O petitioners^{underSectron s 354 and 307 of IPC' He lamented} 161^{Cr.P.C, statementof LW' 1' the} that^as Per^{the Sectton} in-laws^{of the victimforciblYcame into the house 'abused} them^{in filthYand vuigar language'torn their clothesand} behaved^{inindecentmannerand ultimatelY,administered} pesticide^{to the victim'Therefore'he averredthat there ls no} illegality^{in taking cognizanceto Sections 354 and 3O7 of IPC}

¶56

¶57

SKS,.J Ctl P No 27,:7 OI. 2024

¶58

As such, prayed the Court to dismiss this criminal petition as the same lacks merits.

¶59

Having regard to the rival submissions made zrnd on going through the material placed on record, it is notcd that the question before this Court is whether the Court can take cognizance independently without considering the opinion of the Investigating Officer, opined in the charge sher:t and considering averments averred in the Section 161^(-)r.P.C., statements of witnesses.

¶60

In the case on hand, the statement of the ',r,i:nesses would show that the accused persons came to the hr:,use of victim, created chaos and poured pesticide in the mouth of victim, whereas, according to the Police, accusecl No.2 confessed commission of offence and on basis of ttre said confession, the CCTV footages, photographs and CI) were seized which shows that victim herself has con sumed pesticide, as such, the Police deleted Sections 354 and 3O7 of IPC and filed alteration memo. However, this Court is of the opinion that the said CCTV footage requires proof and at this stage, basing on the said evidence, a conclusion cannot be arrived at that there is no attcmpt under Section 3O7 :rf IpC.

¶61

¶62

SKS,J Crl.P-No.2787^{OF 2rJ24}

¶63

Mere deletion^{of Sections 354 and 307 of IPC by the} Investigating^{Officer in the charge sheet is not a ground to find} fault with^{the cogntzanceorder of the trial Court' That being} so, it can^{be concludedthat the trial Court can independently} form opinion^{deferringwith the opinion formed by the} Investigating^Ofhcer.

¶64

In^{view thereof,this Court is of the ltrm view that there} are no illegalities^{in the order passedby the trial Courtin} PRC.No.63^{of 2O2OThere are no merits ln} this criminal petition and^{the same is liable to be dismissed'}

¶65

t2 Accordingiy,^{the CriminalPetition is dismissed'}

¶66

Miscellaneous^{applications, if any pending'shal1 also}

¶67

stand^closed

¶68

Sd/. A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The V Additional^{Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District'}

¶74

2 TheStationHouseofficer,saroornagarPolicestation,RachakondaDistrict J Two CCs to the^{PublicProsecutor'High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad[OUT]

¶75

4 One CC to -Sri Nimma Narayana, Advocate [OPUC]

¶76

5 One CC to Sri^{K. Ramesh Babu, Advocate IOPUC]} 6 Two CD Copies p lp

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 010712024

ORDER

CRLP.No.2787 ot 2024

I
.iHE st4
t
( oR
I',,
i J 1e luL 'irr1t
.. )
. i,t
t
c ,/
, ..' a, -!_.,

¶83

DISMISSING THE CRL.P.

¶84

(r-d
*o fi

Jarpula Ramulu v. The state of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jarpula Ramulu v. The state of Telangana

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

Pottipally Vijay kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Ravi Banoth Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Anegu Jalender Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Burma Ashok Vs the State of Telangana

Nagalakshmi Neelam Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammad Mosin Ali Vs The State of Telangana