High Court · 2000

Order

Petitioner herein is shown as the 4th accused in criminal case 1727 of 2005 on the file of the Court of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad. He filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against him in the said case.

2. Thus the point is whether there are grounds to quash the proceedings in the above criminal case against the petitioner.

3. The above C.C.No.1727 of 2005 was filed against accused Nos. 1 to 3 therein alleging against them offences under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. (house breaking by night and theft in house) in connection with the alleged theft of copper wire spools from the de facto complainant company. The report relating to the said theft was given by one S.P. Subramanyam, a Manager of the de facto complainant company on 09.02.2000 at 4-30 P.M., in Balanagar

Police Station and investigation was taken up by one Sri Md. Salauddin, who was the then Sub Inspector of the said Police Station. In the course of the investigation the said Sub Inspector arrested A-1 to A-3 on 22.03.2000 and allegedly recovered from them a part of the stolen property. It is also the version of the police that in the course of the interrogation of A-1 to A-3 they disclosed that they disposed of some of the stolen property to the present petitioner, who is a scrap merchant at Erragadda, Hyderabad. All these details are given in the charge sheet.

4. In the charge sheet it is mentioned that as some of the stolen properties were recovered from A-1 to A-3 they have been sent up for trial. With regard to the petitioner, who is shown as A- 4 it is mentioned that A-4 has not yet been arrested and that as soon as he is arrested the stolen property will be recovered from him. It is however mentioned in the charge sheet that A-4 is liable for punishment under Section 411 I.P.C. (i.e., dishonestly receiving stolen property knowingly to be stolen) while A-1 to A-3 are liable for punishment under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C.

5. The plea of the petitioner is that he is totally innocent and that on 18th March 2000 at about 9.30 in the night Sri Sadiq Ali, the then Assistant Sub Inspector of Balanagar Police Station and one Constable came to his shop and took him to Sub Inspector Sri Md.Salauddin and that they threatened him to pay a bribe of Rs.50,000/- or else they would implicate him in this criminal case. It is also the version of the petitioner that he was illegally detained in the said police station. It is not necessary to go into other details, but it would be sufficient to note that on the report of the petitioner a trap case was registered against Mr Sadiq Ali (A.S.I.) and Mr Md.Salauddin (S.I.) by the ACB police on the report of the petitioner in connection with a “bribe demand” pertaining to copper wire spools theft case.

6. According to the petitioner, the said trap case ultimately culminated in C.C.No.6 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. It is also seen that the said Court by its judgment dated 22.06.2006 convicted the ASI Mr Sadiq Ali for the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) r/w Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and acquitted the Sub-Inspector. It is not known whether any appeal has been filed against the above judgment of the Special Court and if so what is its stage, but that need not be deter me from disposing of this Criminal Petition.

7. The contention of the petitioner is that he is not connected with the crime in the present C.C.No.1727 of 2005 at all and that following the institution of the above ACB case, Balanagar Police have falsely implicated him in it. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the above ACB case pertains to the demand of bribe by the Assistant Sub Inspector Sadiq Ali and the Sub Inspector Salauddin from him in connection with this present criminal case C.C.No.1727 of 2005 when it was at crime stage and that the Special Court for ACB cases believed his version and therefore, the present criminal case against him should be quashed as one instituted without any basis. He also pointed out that as the petitioner refused to pay any bribe the said police officials then have out of vendetta or revenge implicated him in the present case.

8. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the judgment in C.C.No.6 of 2001 i.e., the ACB case decided by the Special Court. A perusal of the judgment shows that the bribe demand therein from the Assistant Sub Inspector Sadiq Ali and the Sub Inspector Salauddin related to Cr.No.29 of 2000 of P.S. Balanagar which pertains to the present C.C.No.1727 of 2005. Now a perusal of the charge sheet copy filed by the petitioner would show that it is signed by one V.Srikanth Goud, the subsequent S.I., who filed it and it is dated 22.07.2005. It is thus clear that this present C.C.No.1727 of 2005 has been filed during the pendency of the above said ACB Case C.C.No.6 of 2001 which was disposed of on

22.06.2006.

9. What should be noted is that the version of the petitioner is that the concerned police officials of Balanagar police station demanded bribe from him for not charge sheeting him in the said case though he was innocent. This was in substance accepted by the ACB Court in C.C.No.6 of 2001 and the Assistant Sub Inspector was convicted of the said charge. It is therefore clear that if the concerned police from the information and material in their hands had reason to believe that the petitioner was in the business of dishonestly receiving stolen property they could have proceeded to investigate the case against him and file charge sheet and had no business to demand bribe from him. The judgment in C.C.No.6 of 2001 supports the contention of the petitioner.

10. It should be noted that in the charge sheet so far as A-1 to A-3 are concerned it is stated that the investigation disclosed that they are guilty of the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of I.P.C. However with regard to the petitioner also it is stated that he is guilty of the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. without completing the investigation against him and it appears that this opinion was expressed by the I.O. merely on the confessions of A- 1 to A-3. Such an approach on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot be said to be correct. This aspect also fortifies the contention of the petitioner that the charge sheet has been filed against him without any basis merely because of the ACB case mentioned supra which was filed against the police officer of Balanagar P.S.

11. For the aforesaid reasons I am of the opinion that the case i.e., C.C.No.1727 of 2005 in so far as this petitioner is concerned should be quashed. Accordingly the point is decided in favour of the petitioner and this petition is allowed.

12. Parting with the matter it is however made clear that it shall be always open for the Court trying C.C.No.1727 of 2005 to proceed against this petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C., in connection with the said case if the petitioner can be brought under the said provision. It is also made clear that this order is confined only to the present charge sheet in C.C.No.1727 of 2005 and this order shall not be understood to impose any fetters on the powers of the police to investigate offences which may come to light against the petitioner dehors the judgement in the aforesaid ACB case. ________________________ 7th April 2011 INL/cvrk N. RAVI SHANKAR, J