Allowed

Nandanavanam Phani Kumar and 4 others v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Oct 2024CRLP/3949/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings under Section 304-A IPC against five accused faculty members for death caused during an event, finding no evidence of rashness, negligence, or mens rea and holding continuation as abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings in C.C. No. 1127 of 2019 against accused Nos. 1 to 5.

Nandanavanam Phani Kumar and 4 others Vs State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION N O: 3949 OF 2019

¶6

Between:

¶7

'1 . Nandanavanam Phani Kumar S/o. N.V. Seshagiri Rao, aged 42 years, rlo. 4- 7, First Floor, Varasiddi Enclave, Vikas Nagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.Court Buildings, High Court at Hyderabad

¶8

Rapolu Sridhar, Sio. Ramulu, aged 43 years, r/o. H.No.11-13-642t2tF1, V N.R. Residency, Road No.3 Haripuri Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad500035

¶9

Rambhatla Balaji, s/o. Umamaheswara Rao, aged 51 years, r/o. 6-30'1 , Old Malahar Sahara States, Mansoorabad, Hyderabad-500068

¶10

Jaladi Anidhya Kiran, s/o. J.J. Prasanna Rao, aged 4l years, rto. 17-3, Dharmapuri Colony, / Uppal, Hyderabad -500039

¶11

Panguluru Venkata Suresh Babu, s/o. Appa Rao, aged 41 years, r/o. Shiva Nilayam, Sri Raghavendra Nagar Colony, Mansoorabad, Hydi:rabad -500068

¶12

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 to 5

¶13

AND

¶14

State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, High Court at Hyderabad. .. Respondent

¶15

Smt. Karem Sujatha, w/o. Pandiri Gangadhar, aged about 50 years, r/o. Plot No.304/A-Block, Government Quarters, Malakpet, Hyderabad-36.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶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 quas.h the Charge Sheet in CC No. 1127 of 2019 of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir, Nalgonda District against the petitioners.

¶18

( As per Court order dated 19-3-202'l in LA.No. 1 ot 2021 in Crl.P.No. 3949 of 2019 .The Court name is corrected.

¶19

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶21

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 stay all further proceedings charge sheet an .cc No, 1127 of 2019 of the court of Additional Judicial First class Magistrate, Bhongir, Nalgonda District pending disposal of the main petition.

¶22

( As per Court order dated 19-3-2021 in l.A.No 1 of 2O21 in Crl.P.No. 3949 of 20'19 .The Court name is corrected.

¶23

l.A. NO: 1OF 2020

¶24

Petition under section 482 ot cr.p .c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal' pJtition,the High court may be pleased to amend the name of "court of V Additional District Sessions Judge, Bhongir, Nalgonda District as court of Additional Judicial First class Magisirate, Bhongir, Nalgonda District, in the order dated 12-07-2019 in crt.p. No.5g+s or 2019.

¶25

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2o22

¶26

Petition under section 4g2 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal pelition,the High court miy ue pleased ro extend the interim order dtd: nnAolg in lA No:1/20.19 in crlp No.3949/2019 pending disposal of Crl.p.

¶27

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri sRlNlvASA RAo BODDULURT ,Advocate for the petitioner and sRr E. GANESH, Asst. pubric Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of sri GHANTASALA uDAyA BHASKAR, representing sRl v.s.R.M.v. PRASAD, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶28

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶29

l./.\

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶31

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3949 OF 2019

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This Criminal Petition is hled by petitioners-accused^{Nos. I} to 5 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminai^{Procedure (for} short 'Cr.P.C.J praying this Court to quash the^proceedings against them in C.C.No. 1 127 of 2019^pending on the^{file of the} learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,^Bhongir, Nalgonda District, for the offence under Section^{304-A of the} Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPCJ.

¶34

Heard Sri Srinivas Rao Bodduluri, learned^{counsel for the} petitioners, Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Government^Pleader for respondent No.1 - State, Sri Ghantasala^{UdayaBhaskar,} learned counsel, representing Sri^{V.S.R.M.V.Prasad,learned} counsel for respondent No.2 and^{perused the record.}

¶35

Briefly, the case of the^{prosecutionis that on 12.01.2019} the students of Vignan Institute of^{Technolory are performing} traditional day in the college.^{The deceasednamely Pandiri} Bhargav along with LWs 7 to^{13 intended to consume alcohol,} gathered some amount and gave to LW8. Then^{the deceasedand} LW8 went to Abdullahpurmet,^purchased liquor^{and all gathered} at left side open^{place to Deshmukhi road where the deceased,}

¶36

)

¶37

LW9 and LWl3 consumed full bottle of Royal challenge alcohol in mixing with thumsup cool drink and others also consumed remaining alcohol. Except the deceased, LWs 7 to 13 went inside of the college to attend the function. After entering into the college, LWs 7 to 13 raised slogans where heated arguments took place with "Civil Engineering,, students where they too came to attend the said party. LWs 7 to 9 and LWl I along with some others came out of the college and met the deceased, who was at college canteen. Some of the "Civil Engineering" students were also present at the canteen. Observing them, the accused persons 1 to 5 chased the students where all the students escaped in all corners and the deceased fled to the backside of college towards old kakatiya stone quarry side, slipped and fallen into the quarry received blunt injury on chest and in abdomen and died on the spot.

¶38

Basing on the complaint lodged by the 2'd respondent herein, Police Pochampally have registered a case in Crime No.06 of 2019 against petitioners herein for the offence punishable under Section 304-4 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet before the learned trial Court.

/-.,

Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the petitioners have absolutely nothing to do with the unfortunate death of P.Bhargava and petitioners were not witnesses to the death or the incidents that lead to the death. He further contended that the petitioners are faculty members conlined to teaching in the college premises. The date of death of the deceased was on a holiday and at a far of place from college. He further contended that even according to the identical statements of the alleged witnesses, some students, in an inebriated condition, picked up a quarrel with other students and on seeing the faculty members ran away in different directions. He further contended that the ingredients of Section 304,{ of IPC are not satisfied as there is no allegation that petitioners have committed any negligent act. He further contended that absolutely no evidence regarding any negligent act or motive or knowledge on the part of petitioners. He further contended that prosecuting petitioners on the flimsy allegations is nothing, but, harassment and will severely affect the career of petitioners. Therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against petitioners.

¶44

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l - State as well as learned counsel for unofficial * *gespondent^Nc.?would submit that the criminal petition has been

¶45

I I

¶46

¶47

fiIed in the year 2019 and more than six years have been elapsed and uniess and until full-fledged trial is being conducted, by examining the witnesses , pima facie, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that petitioners are not involved in the alleged offences. He, therefore, submits that interference of this Court, at this stage, is unwarranted and seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

¶48

As seen from the proceeding sheet, this Court vide Order dated 12.07.2O19 granted interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.1l27 of 2019 on the lile of the learned trial Court, insofar as petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 5 are concerned. Later, the interim order was extended from time to time.

¶49

Before arriving at a finding, this Court deems it expedient to examine Section 304-4 of the IPC and the interpretation accorded to it.

¶50

Rash and Negligent Act: Section 304-,{ of the IPC hnds mention in Chapter XVI of the IPC under the heading 'of offences affecting the human body'. The provision provides for a situation where death of a person has been caused by an act that is 'rash' or 'negligent'. It is in the nature of an exception to 'culpable

I t1

homicide' as defined in Section 299 of the IpC. Therefore, the issue is what constitutes culpable rashness or negligence?

¶55

Culpable rashness is doing or omitting to do something, with the knowledge or consciousness that such wanton act or omission can lead to illegal consequences. Culpability, in a case of rashness, lies in acting with consciousness and doing so, with indifference as to the consequences of such act. Culpable negligence, on the other hand, constitutes a breach of duty to do something which an ordinary reasonable man, in those circumstances would have done. Criminality in case of negligence arises when there is no consciousness as to the consequences which may follow but circumstances are such that shows it was incumbent upon the actor to take certain precautions. It is further settled law that for a 'negligent act' to give rise to a criminal liability, the negligence ought to be 'gross', which is a standard to be decided on the basis of facts and circumstances ofeach case.

¶56

ln Rathnashalaan a. State of Karnatakat, the Hon,bie

¶57

Supreme Court held as under

¶58

'7. Section 3O4-A applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knotuledge that the act done in all probabilitg will cause deattu The prouision is directed at offences outside tLrc range of

¶59

' l2oozl^{3 scc474}

¶60

¶61

Sections 299 and 30O IPC. The prouision applies only to such acts ulhich are rash and negligent and are directlg cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section 304-4. Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the ertent of its reasonableness utill ohtLags depend upon the ciranmstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act utith the conscioasness of a isk that euil consequences uill fotlou but with the hope that it utill not. Negligence is a breach of dutg imposed bg laut. In ciminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are detennining foctors. A question whether the acased's conduct amounted to anlpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what i.s the amount of care and ciranmspection uthich a pntdent and reasonable man utould consid_er it to be sulficient considering all tle circumstances of the ca,se. Criminal rashness medns hazarding o. dangerous or wanton act with the knouledge that it is dangerous or u)anton and the further knowledge that it m.ag cause injury but done utthout ang intention to cause injury or lorcwledge that it ulould probablg be caused.

¶62

l-\ \

¶63

As noted aboue, "rashness " consisfs in hazarding a dangerous or uanton act uith the knouledge that it is so, and that tt mag cause injury. The criminalitg lies in such a case in ntnning the risk of dotng such an act with recklessness or ind.ifference as to tlte consequences. Criminal negligence on tLrc

¶64

¶65

I I

¶66

other hand, is the^{grossand culpable neglector} failure to exercise that^{reasonableand propercare and} precaution to guard against injury^{either to tle public} generallg or to an indiuidual^{in partiaiar,whicll} hauing regard. to all the^{ciranmstancesout of whichthe} charge has aisen it utas^{the imperatiuedutg of the} accused Person to^{haue adoPted.."}

¶67

Having heard^{learned counsel for both sidesand} considering^{the facts and circumstances of the case, on perusal of} the entire record^{and keeping in view the aboveratio laid downby} the Honourable^{SupremeCourt, this Court is of the considered} view that there is^{no'mens rea'oi the part of petitioners, in any} manner, leading^{to the death of the deceased'Moreover' a} perusal of the statements^{of the witnessesand charge sheet' the} ingredients for the^{offenceunder Section304-A of IPC are not} made out and^{there is no rash or negligent act on the part of} petitioners. It is an^{establishedpropositionthat inherentpowers} of the Court under^{Sectio t482 of Cr' P'C to quash further} proceedings can be invoked^{with due care, caution and} circumspection^{and only in deserving caseswhere continuance of} such proceedings^{clearly amounts to abuse of process of law'} Therefore, in view^{of the above,the continuation of criminal} proceedings against^{petitioners will amount to abuseof process of .} law.

I I

1 1 . Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners - accused Nos.l to 5 in C.C.No. 1127 of 2Ol9 on the lile of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir, Nalgonda District, are hereby Quashed.

¶72

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶73

Sd/- V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

9// SECTION drn CER

The Additional Judicial Fist Class Magistrate, Bhongir, Nalgonda District.

¶79

The Station House Officer, Pochampally Police Station, yadadri, Nalgonda District.

¶80

Two CCs to Asst. Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, High Court at Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶81

One CC to SRl. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURT Advocate tOpUCI

¶82

One CC to SRl. GHANTASALA UDAYA BHASKAR, Advocate tOpUCJ

¶83

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATEO:0111012024

ORDER

CRL.PETITION No.3949 ol 2019

¶90

P. -tlil s, (:' ,
<br>oo ;r]
0 g rj'tlJ zul
\ 1,.^'? +t/;'t/
:.
\i".-.

¶91

AI,LOWING THE CRL.PEI'ITION.

¶92

€r{il\V

Nandanavanam Phani Kumar and 4 others v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandanavanam Phani Kumar and 4 others v. 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

Pallerla Narayana Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Yash Gadgets Vs The State of Telangana

Mars Therapeutics and Chemicals Limited, Vs The State of Telangana

M/S Esperanza Corporate (P) Ltd., and Anr., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Geesa Venkatesham Vs M/s.Manyasree Chits (India) Pvt.Ltd

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited Vs The State of Telangana and Another