Veerapaneni Surprakash Rao v. High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr.

Order

13--08-2010 Between: Veerapaneni Surprakash Rao ..Petitioner

1.State of A.P.rep.by the Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.606 of 2008 order:

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.252 of 2007 pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jagitial, Karimnagar District, who took the case on file against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 290 and 506 IPC.

2. The 2nd respondent/complainant filed a private complaint

before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jagitial against the petitioner/accused alleging that while he was working as Chief Manager, Andhra Bank, Godavarikhani and residing at Godavarikhani; his brother, namely, Gandham Rama Krishna married one Veerapaneni Sudeepta, daughter of the petitioner in December, 2002. After the marriage, both of them stayed in USA. The petitioner/accused was working as Reader in Sri Venkateswara College, University of Delhi. In the year 2005-2006, when the brother of the complainant decided to purchase a residential accommodation for himself in Delhi, requested his father in law i.e. petitioner herein to assist him in finding a house in Delhi. On identifying a suitable house property in Gurgoan, Haryana State, which is nearer to Delhi, the brother of the complainant, sent a sum of Rs.65 lakhs to the accused through wire transfer to his account. After some time when the complainant’s brother requested the accused to send the documents of house property/flat purchased i.e. allotment letter and sale deed etc., to the utter shock of the brother of the complainant, the allotment letter shows the name of the accused as co-allottee along with his daughter—Veerapaneni Sudeepta. When the complainant’s brother requested to change the flat in his name, the accused not only avoided to transfer the same in the name of complaint’s brother but also with a mala fide intention created troubles and trauma in the marital life of complainant’s brother, and the accused claimed the property belongs to him and complainant’s brother is no way concern with the property and started threatening the complainant with dire consequences posing danger to his life if the criminal case, which is pending against the accused in PS Ghanpur, Warangal District, is not withdrawn and abused the complainant in filthy language; and also threatened him through e-mails, telephone and cell phone calls. It is curious to note that the accused travelled all the while from Delhi to Hyderabad on 23-03-2007, stayed till 25-03-2007, conveyed to the friend of complainant’s brother through e- mail about his coming to Hyderabad to engage musclemen and threatened the complainant. At that stage the complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 r/w 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the accused before the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal. On Magistrate forwarding the complaint, the police registered a case in Cr.No.55 of 2007 against the accused. When the accused avoided to receive the summons, NBW was issued against the petitioner/accused on 29-04-2007. Three police officials were deputed to Delhi for the purpose of execution of NBW, with the help of local police in Dwaraka Police Station, New Delhi, but could not serve on the accused.

3. In that regard, the complainant has made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Warangal against the police officials for non- execution of NBW. Later, the accused filed an application for anticipatory bail before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal by concealing the fact of issuance of NBW against him earlier and the said application was allowed. While so, on 15-06-2007 the complainant attended to Sai Baba temple at Korutla and while returning from the temple, he had tea and Tiffin at Satyanarayana Lodge, Jagityal Bus Stand. After having tea and Tiffin at about 7 P.M. when the complainant reached the parking space near the lodge to get into his car, all of a sudden the accused along with his wife and four unidentified people possessed with deadly weapons tried to attack on the complainant with a view to do away his life keeping in view of grudge between the accused and his son-in-law, who is the brother of the complainant and abused the complainant in filthy language. In the meanwhile, one of the unidentified persons removed knife from his pocket and threatened the complainant that in case the FIR already filed against the accused is not withdrawn and the brother of the complainant would not desist from claiming the right over the flat at Gurgoan, Haryana State, they will kill the complainant and his family members including his brother. At that time, Ramulu, which was later corrected as Rama Rao, and two others including an auto driver were present and witnessed the incident.

4. Basing on the said complaint filed on 16-06-2007, the Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and one K.Srinivas, took the case on file and issued process. To quash the same the present Criminal Petition is filed.

5. Sri V.Pattabhi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a reading of the complaint as a whole do not make out an offence punishable under Sections 290 and 506 IPC. To attract Section 290 IPC a person should commit a public nuisance. It should be read in conjoint with Section 133 Cr.P.C. The allegation in the complaint shows that some unidentified persons along with the accused threatened the complainant. The injury is to his person, reputation or property and the intention is to harm that person as defined under Section 503 IPC. Even otherwise, the complaint as such was lodged with a dishonest intention. For the said purpose he relied upon the complaint lodged with PS Ghanpur, where the police registered a case in Cr.No.55/2007 with identical allegations. The said complaint was referred to the police, who in turn registered the same in Cr.No.55/2007. The police after due investigation into the same filed a report referring the case as ‘false’ and requested the Court to treat accordingly. When the petitioner obtained anticipatory bail with certain conditions, the said conditions were relaxed by the High Court in Crl.P.No.No.3749 of 2007, dated 27- 06-2007. When the complaint moved the High Court for cancellation of anticipatory bail, the same has been dismissed on 28-11-2007. The daughter of the petitioner due to disputes with her husband, who is no other than the brother of the complainant, moved for divorce in HMA Suit No.90 of 2007 under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the District Court at Delhi. The present complaint is filed only to tarnish the reputation of the petitioner. Further, the brother of the complainant also filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner and her daughter before the Dwaraka Police Station, New Delhi for the offences under Sections 383, 403, 406, 420, 499 and 500 IPC. Alleging that the police have not taken any action, he moved a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi to direct the concerned police to investigate into the matter and take appropriate action, which was dismissed on 26-05-2007 and the revision the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi Crl.R.P.No.182 of 2007 was also dismissed on 19-12-2007. Therefore, continuing the proceedings is nothing but abuse of process and the same are liable to be quashed.

6. Sri V.Raghunath, learned counsel representing the complainant contends that when the complaint allegations clearly show that the accused threatened the complainant. Mere filing a report in Cr.No.55 of 2007 registered for the offence under Sections 307, 283, 290 and 323 IPC referring the case as false cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings where the complainant reserves his right that he will take appropriate action by filing protest petition before the Magistrate, who forwarded the compliant to the police. The dismissal of complainant’s petition by the Magistrate at Delhi and confirmed in revision by the Sessions Judge are on technical grounds. Therefore, complainant should be given an opportunity to prove his innocence and the proceedings cannot be quashed at initial stage.

7. The complaint allegations made by the complainant in C.C.No.252 of 2007, which was filed on 16-06-2007, are same as that of the complaint allegations in CFR No.1756/2007 filed before the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal on 02-04-2007, which was forwarded to the PS Ghanpur, who after registering the same as Cr.No.55/2007 filed a report referring the case as ‘false’. In the said complaint it was stated that on 24-03-2007 when the complainant was returning from his office at Himayatnagar in the evening at 5.30 P.M. on the Necklace road, the accused along with four unidentified people stopped the car and abused him, which cannot be mentioned in the complaint. Out of four, one of the accused removed knife from his pocket and threatened the complainant with an intention to kill him, in case if the complainant does not call his brother at that point of time and tell him to desist from raising the issue of the flat in Gurgaon. With great difficulty, the complainant could manage to flee away from the place with minor injuries on his forearm and a bit of danger to his car. Again on 01-04-2007, when the complainant was coming from Bhadrakali temple at Warangal and when he was nearing Shivareddipalli village within the limits of PS Ghanpur, some unknown persons claiming to be the representatives of the accused stopped the car of the complainant and dragged him from the car and fisted him with bear hands, gave blows on his back and attempted to throttle his neck with an intention to kill him and warned him with dire consequences not to interfere in the unlawful demands of the accused. They also threatened the complainant to inform his brother to transfer the property in Vijayawada in the name of accused and his daughter.

8. On the next day itself i.e. on 02-04-2007 the complainant filed a private complainant with the Magistrate but not lodged any police complaint either on 24-03-2007 i.e. on the first time of attack or on the next day till 02-04-2007. In the said complaint, it is also mentioned Mr.Ramulu and two others including auto driver were present on the sport and witnessed the incident. An identical allegations were made in the present complaint, as referred to above, that incident has been witnessed by Mr.Ramulu and two others including the auto driver; and the name of Ramulu was later altered as Rama Rao. Whereas in the present complaint he has stated that while returning from Sai Baba Temple at Korutla, he had tea and Tiffin in Satyanarayana Lodge and after that when he reached the parking place near the lodge to get into his car, the accused along with his wife and four unidentified people possessed with deadly weapons tried to attack him.

9. In the sworn statement the complainant has stated that he attended Sai Baba Temple at Korutla and while returning from the temple, he stayed at Satyanarayana Lodge, Jagityal near bus stand at about 7 P.M. to have a tiffin and tea, in the meanwhile, all of a sudden the accused along with his wife and four unidentified persons armed with deadly weapons tried to attack him with a view to do away his life and at that time K.Srinivas, N.Ramaiah and one P.Rama Rao were present at the place of incident.

10. The evidence of K.Srinivas shows that he along with his friends N.Ramaiah and P.Rama Rao went to Satyanarayana Lodge near bus stand on his personal work. At that time some unknown persons, five in number, attacked on a person armed with deadly weapons. When he enquired, the person, who attacked by the said assailants, revealed his name as G.Ravi Kumar, working as Chief Manager, Godavarikhani, Andhra Bank. He further witnessed that among five persons one person picked up a knife from his pocket and threatened the complainant with dire consequences to kill.

11. By any stretch of imagination similar kind of attacks are not expected by the assialints. It is not disputed to attract Section 290 IPC, public nuisance as specified under Section 133 Cr.P.C. has to be committed. The complaint allegations show that the accused along with his wife and four unidentified persons tried to attack on the complainant with a view to do away his life and one of the four unidentified persons removed a knife and threatened complainanat, if the FIR already filed is not withdrawn and the borher of the complainanat would not desist to claim flat at Gurgoan, they will kill the complainant and his family members including his broher. It is nowhere stated the accused or his wife threatened complainant with any injury to his person, reputation or property and the intention to cause harm to the complainant and to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such acts.

12. Whereas the sworn statement of K.Srinivas shows that some unknown persons, five in number, attacked on the complainant armed with deadly weapons; when he enquired the person attacked by the said assailants, he revealed his name as G.Ravi Kumar—complainant, which fact has not been stated either in the complainant or in the sworn statement of the complainant. Indisputably, when the earlier complaint referred to the police, Ghanpur, who after investigation filed a report referring the case as ‘false’, the complainant has not taken any steps to file protest application before the Magistrate, on filing such report by the police.

13. When the complainant lodged similar complaint with the Magistrate on the earlier occasion, he is expected to file a complaint with the police on the same date of attack, which he has not chosen to do so. In view of the same, complainant lodging complaints at various places with identical allegations, which manifestly attended with mala fide intention and such proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge as per illustration 7 enumerated in STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJANLAL ((1992) SCC Suppl-1 335 = AIR 1992SC 601) and allowing the same to be continued is nothing but abuse of process and the same are liable to be quashed.

14. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.252 of 2007 pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jagitial, Karimnagar District are quashed. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 13-08-2010 Murthy