Allowed

Maddela Sai Baba v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Jul 2024CRLP/3500/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the accused under Section 160 IPC. It held that since no independent witnesses were examined during investigation and no specific allegations were leveled against the petitioner in the complaint, the charge sheet appeared mechanical and without reasonable suspicion.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings (C.C. No. 1517 of 2020) against the petitioner/accused No.4 in CC filed by the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, are quashed.

Maddela Sai Baba Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

; I

¶2

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶7

CRIMIN AL PETITION NO: 3500 oF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Maddela Sai Baba, S/o. Ba laiah, Age 43 years, Occ.Business, R/o.H.No.14_10-110, Srinivasa Nagar Colonv. Gajularamararn, euthbullapur Mandal, nang, Reddy District (A-4)

¶10

AND

¶11

...pETlTtONER/ACCUSED No.4

¶12

1 Il9^{St3tgof Telangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor,} High Court for the State.of Telangana, High Court -Buildings, ffyJurri"J, tnrough SHO, p.S.

¶13

Dundigal, Cyberabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

2 Sri M.Janaiah, Sio. Late Ramulu, police Constable pC.No.38g9, Dundigal Police Station, Dundigal, Cyberabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶17

Petition under section -4g2 0f cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds or criminit petition, the High court may le^^{gleaged to quash the} -proceedings^{againsipetitioner/accused} no. 4 in Cyberabadd c.c.No.1517 ot at Medchal, Cyberabad.2020 on the fire of the tionou"raoi" xk Metropotitan GgiJirut. "t

¶18

l.A. NO:2 oF 2024

¶19

Petition under section 482 0f cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds or criminat'peitition,the iigh C.r.t ;;y o" pleased to stay all further proceedings, inciuOing the appearance of the Petitioner/accused no.4 in c.c.irro.1517 oi iozo-on in" fire of the Honourabre XXI Metropolitan Magistrate at cyberabadd ,t rr,leo"nli, cyberabad, pu"oing di.i..rr of the above criminal petition.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon h";;; the';rguments of M/s. Disha Law Firm Rep. for sri Nageshwar Rao pujari, Adr/ocaie ror $re petitioner and sri s. Ganesh, Assistant pubric prosecuto,. on uer,rrrt-r tto Respondent No..r and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE Ti|ONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE K. SU'J IJ{A} CEUMINAL PETITION^{No'3SOO of 2Oi2)"t}

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Tt.is Criminal^{Petition is hled underSlr tron '182} of the Ccde of^{CriminalProcedure,1973 rrslrort} 'Cr.P.C.') :y the^{petitioner/ accused No 4r-: rl<ing to} quash the proceedings^{against them in CC I' I 5 1'z of} 2O2O on^t he^{hle of the XXI MetropolitanMa srl 'trate} '^at Cyberabac, at^{Medchal, for theallege'J offences} punishabl: under^{Section160 of the Indian l:)r rrtrl Ccde'} i 860 (for^r;hort'IPCJ.

¶25

Tee brief facts of^{the case ar{} ihat the iesponder.t No.2lde facto^{complainant who is '} r rkrn g as Police Co nstable^{in Dundigal Police Station} l,rdg:d a written crrmplaint^{stating that on 04 O5'2O2(} zrt about 11OO hours,^{while he was performinghis pe't} ,r[ duLy at Kaisar Nagar, HMDA^{Park, he found two gro-l} s hghting with othe r in^{publicplace,causingpublicc} ;t urbance and nuis,lnce.^{On enquiry, he came to kno"r'} Lrat.,here were two groups, out^{of which the firstgrou':r} :omprised

¶26

¶27

¶28

SKS,J Crl-P.No.35O0 oI 2O24

¶29

of ten people and the second group comprised of eight people who were quarrelling with each other, using Iilthy and abusive language, which intensely affected the tranquility of society.

¶30

On receipt of the said complaint, the Police investigated the matter and filed charge sheet, whereunder, the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.4. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal petition is filed.

¶31

4 Heard Sri Nageshwar Rao Pujari, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri S.Ganesh, Iearned Assistant public prosecutor, appearing for respondent No. I - State.

¶32

5 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without there being any preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was alleged of offence under Section i60 of IpC and the same is abuse of process of law. He contended that on receipt of complaint from respondent No.2, the Police filed registered FIR, and filed charge sheet in a mechanical way, without there being any reasonable

¶33

¶34

SI(S,.I Crl. P. No.3:i1 ' of^2O24

¶35

suspicion⁽ n the^{petitioner and the sameindilrr tr:s tl-rat} the charge sheet was hled^{with ulterior n'lr i'reHe} asserted that the^{petitioner is a iaw abiding cilz|e an<l is} having a w'rl1 reputed image in^{the society and,:rt ht: is} lalsety impticated in this^{casewhich would trrr -rish his} image. He lamented that^{except vaguealie:'rtions of} creating p'rblic nuisance,^{there are no spec'i:set of} allegations leveled against^{the petitioner,as sul l} ,^prayed this Court to allow the Criminal^{Petition by quarrhing the} proceedings against the petitioner.

¶36

OrL the other hand, the learned^{Assisri r rt Public} Sta.te, Prosecutor appearing for respondent^No.I contended lhat as per the complaint^{averrn!nts, the} allegation eveled against^{the petitioner/accu:rtNo.'l is} that along with other accused he^{has creert. ipublic} nuisance t y quarrelling with set^{of peopleof ot1} "r^grc'up. He asserte d that petitioner was part of^{grou II ne} 'vho quarreled vith group two by abusing^{them in r' 113ar and} hlthy lang rage, causing disturbance^{to the ptr r i'l poace} and tranq'.rility. Therefore,^prayed this^{Court I} 'Cisrniss the crimin r1 petition.

I I / ]I

SKS,J Crl,P.No.35OO of 2O24

¶42

Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the rn21s11s1 placed on record, it is noted that the while the respondent No.2 who is working as Police Constable in Dundigal police Station, was performing his patrol duty, found that two groups were . fighting with each other public place using vulgar and abusive ranguage *hi.h ,' esulted in disturbing the public peace and tranquility, as such, he filed complaint against them and ultimately charge sheet was filed against them under Secdon 160 of IpC

¶43

On meticulously perusing the material placed on record, it is noted that during the course of investigation, the police examined LW. I who is respondent No.2/de facto conplainant, LW.2 who is also a police Constable ald LWs.3 and 4 who were panch for scene of offence. Keeping in view the same, it is pertinent to note that no independent witnesses were examined, basing on which the offence as alleged against the petitioner/accused No.4 would be revealed, which would constitute offence against the petitioner/accused No.4 under Section I60 of IpC. Further, it is also to be noted

¶44

:_<,

¶45

¶46

SI(S,J Crl.P.No 3.^{</sup> of^2t)24}

¶47

i t

¶48

that there ,rre no specihc^{allegationsleveledeLp} inst the petitioner in the complaint^{averments and ch:r} 3r:^{sh eet} averments. That being^{so, this Court is of ther:'} r sidered view that the proceedings^{initiatedagirLr li;tthe} petitioner/ rccused No.4^{are liable to be quashcr}

¶49

g . Ac cordingly, this Criminal^{Petitionis a llov'ed,} quashing the proceedings^{initiatedagil rs;tthe} petitioner/:1ccused. No.4 in^{CC.No. 1517 of 2('''o on the} file of the^(XI Metropolitan^{Magistrate, at Cyl.rtr abad, at} Medchal.

¶50

M.scellaneous applications,^{if any percllng,shall}

¶51

also stancl closed

¶52

SiD/.K.VENKAIAH ASSISi"I\NT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

IiECTION OFFICER

To,

The XXI Metropclitan Magistrate at Cyberabad at Medcha , Oyberabad.

¶57

The Station Hour;e Officer, Dundigal Police Station,^Cyb,:rt ' bad.

¶58

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the^Sti,rlr:c,f Telangana^at Hyderabad[OUT

¶59

One CC to Sri N;rgeshwar Rao Pujari, Advocate [OPUC]

¶60

Two CD Copies

¶61

LSR/plp

t l

HIGH^COURT

DATED:0410712024

-4 .- :-::-_.
l:-r,tt I 4 / .-c
,',..on
vza
i 1E ,i 2Ul .b
*
t p
t c$(
=4 . .^.-t.j
--;--'--' .,
'-:l:tf:-"

¶67

ORDER

¶68

CRLP.No.3500^{of 2024}

¶69

ALLOWING'I-HE^CRL.P.

¶70

G)q'u
W

Maddela Sai Baba v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maddela Sai Baba 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vislavath Mahender @ Mehu Naik Vs The State of Telangana

Kampati Lalitha Vs The State of Telangana

Gattu Kanakavva Vs The State of Telangana

B. Amarendra Vs State of Telangana

Dande Yugander Vs The state of Telangana

Bheenaveni Ram Shepherd , Bheenaveni Ramaiah Vs The State of Telangana and another