The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.5947 OF 2019 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is hled to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A7 to A12 in SC.No.124 of 2Ol9 on the file of VII Addl.District Judge cum SC/STs Special Court at L.B.Nagar, Cyberabad, for the offences punishable under Secl-ions 147 , 148, 324 rlw.l49 of the Indian penal code and Section 3(l)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/STs (Pr,A) At't.

2. The defacto complainant/2"d respondent filed c:omplaint before the Charrdar-ragar P.S. on 08.12.201a at 8.30 Jr.m. In the said complaint, he narrated that he is the Division l)resident of TDP party, Serilingzrmpally. Around 6.00 P.M. on the same day Accused No.1 (not petitior-rer herein), who is one of the commr.ttee members of TDP party called him to discuss about the money clistribution in the polling booths. During the discussion, quarrel ensued between 2"d respondent and A I , rcgarding the money meant for polling booths. A1 abused him and refused to give money to 2" respondent, and said that he u'ill not pay 2"d respondent any moneli, and he can do whatever he wanted to. The 2"a respondent repliecl that though he was putting in more efforts for the party, however, money was not being paid to him. Accordingly, A1 was angered b1'the answer given ,/ 2 by the defacto complainant ald abused him as " Bichapu Lanja Koduka" (beggar Bastard).

3. The followers of A1, who are A2 to A6, beat 2"d respondent with hands, questioning him as to why he was confronting A1. The followers of A1 named in the complaint and the other followers beat him. For the said reason, 2"d respondent sought the indulgence of Police Inspector to investigate the case and take action against the accused persons

4. The Investigating Officer then caused enquiries and examined the witnesses including the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant and other witnesses to the incident during their statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., named A1 to A6 and also these petitioners who are A7 to Al2. Accordingly, the petitioners were also arrayed as accused in the charge sheet though they were not named in the FIR.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that, the petitioners were not named in the FIR, however, they were included in the charge sheet, without any basis. Admittedly, it was a political meeting and fight ensued in between part5z workers. If the petitioners had in fact assaulted the defacto complainant, their 3 narnes would have been mentioned in the complairrt. It is apparent that they u,ere falseh' implicated at a subsequent da.te.

6. The learned Senior Counsel Ms.B.Rachala, irgued that FIR is not art Encvclopedia to include each and every minute detail- The FIR is to start t}'re investigation. Facts that arr: known to the Investigating Offir:er during investigation, will be taken into consideration and, accordingly, the charge sheet would be hled. Not mentioning the names of the petitioners in the c.omplaint is of no consequence, u,hen nearly 1O eye-witnesses deposed the names of these petitioners as the persons who were in the office and part of the group that attacked the defacto complainant.

7. The incident happened in the office of a polir:ical party, when the defacto complainant questioned A 1 regarding the money that u,as to be distrjbuted in the polling booths. The altercation was in between A1 ald the defacto complainant. It was A1, who according to the complaint abused the defacto complainant Lrr the name of his

8. The details of the arrangements made in ltetween the party workers and discr.rssions regarding the distribution of money, was detailed in the i 6 I cr. P. c. statement. The details ,f the dialogue in between the defacto compiainant and A1 was afso narrated and that 4 A2 to A6 beat him, after altercation with Al. 2"a respondent further stated that A7 to Al2 took him downstairs and abused him in filthy language arld beat him with sticks and hands.

9. The 161 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses including 2"a respondent were recorded on 09.12.2018, after the complaint was filed on 08.12.2018. The incident happened at 6.OO p.m. on O8.l2.2OIa and the complaint was filed at 8.3O p.m,, before the police. In the complaint, the defacto complainant narrated that A2 to A6 beat him. However, during the recording of 161 Cr.P.C statement, 2nd respondent stated that he was again taken to the ground floor and beaten by these petitioners. There is no whisper in the complaint about the defacto complainant being beaten twice. If at all Defacto Complainant has stated that after beating by the persons named in the FIR, he was again beaten without giving narnes, is understandable. However, the entire episode of the petitioners herein beating him up for the second time, after taking him downstairs appears to have been made up, apparently on account of disputes in between the party workers.

10. Petitioners A7 -Al2 are arraved as accused with the aid of Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Common object of the members of an unlawful assembly can be gathered from the facts of a given case. In the present case, even according to the defacto \ \ ;,ffi # complainant, hc had altercation with Al ald then A2 to A6 intervened ald questioned him as to why he was fighting with A1 who was a senior associate in the party and a conrmittee member. Then he was bealen up by A2 to A6. 1 1. The defacto complainant did not even stat'b tltrlt he was beaten up for the second time, in the complaint as discussed above. Being beaten by a different group of people for the 2"a time, is not a minor aspect that cor.tld be forgotten, when the compl,aint was lodged within 2 % hours after the incident. The 161 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded the next day. False implication of the petitioners is apparent bv introducing a separate incident ol' beating the 2"d respondent. The question of continuing criminal trial against the petitioners rnith the aid of Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, cannot be sustained. C) nlv for the reason of several ottrt:r party workers stating that thcse petitioners are involved cannc,t form basis to accept a differcnt version, from what was mt:ntioned in the complaint, at the earliest point of time.

12. In Shiu Prasad Semual a. Stte of Uttarakhand and othersl '33. In thc case ofState of Haryana and ors, V, Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Supp (11 SCC 335, this Courr examined the 1120241 7 Supreme Court Cases 555 6 principles governing the scope of exercise of powers by the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and held as follows: 1O2. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or th.e inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufhciently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. ( 1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report ald other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. \ I I 7 (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do noI constitute a cognizable offcnce but constitute only a non-cognizabie offence, no investigation is permitted by a police ofhcer without a n order of a Magistrate as conterrplated under Section i55(2) of the Code. (5) Where thc allegations made in the FIR or conrplaint are so absurd anrl inhercntly improbable on the basir; of which no prudent p('rson can ever reach a just conclusiorr that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where thcre is an express legal bar engraftecL in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuancc of tht: proceedings and/ or whr.re there rs a specific provision in the Code or the concerned .{ct, providing eff,rcacious redress for the grievance of the aggrierrr:d party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attenrled with mala fide and/rrr where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulle rror motive for wreaking vengeance t.r the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and pcrsonal grudge.

34. Tested on the touchstone of the above princiy>les, we are of the hrm vlew that allowing continuance of tht: proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR bearing No. 31 of 2O2O registered zrt PS Muni Ki Reti, District Tehri Gacl-rwal against the appella nt is nothing but gross abuse of p::ocess of iaw because the allegations as set out in the FIR do not disclose necessary ingredicnts of any cognizable offenr:r:. Hence, the impugned IrlR and zrll proceedings sought to be taken against the appellant are hereby quashed and set aside.', t I 8

13. False implication is clear from the statement made against these petitioners subsequently, by mentioning a separate incident.. In the facts of the present case, these petitioners were deliberately named, due to differences in the party cadre. The proceedings again st these petitioners deserve to be quashed. 14' Accordingly' criminal Petition is allowed' //TRUE COPY// sd/- M.HD. rsMArL ASSIS ANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, I

1. The Vrr Addr. District Judge-cum scs/STs speciar court at L.B.Nagar, cyberabad z. rn" station House officer, chandanagar porice station, Ranga Reddy District. 3. One CC to Sri pavan Kumar Aditya Maltadi, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to pUBLTC Hyderabad [OUT] High court for the state of rerangana at 'RO'ECUTOR,

5. Two CD copies. BJLB/gh w \ HIGH COURT DATED:281O212025 ORDER CRLP.No.5947 ol 2O19 ,ltr ,o6r;=\ Il ;ihI0 02 ) 2 f 1l CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED \ {t \ t t-t) (aTPA 1,) le544 i I i