Criminal Petition No. 11372 of 2024 · The High Court · 2025

7. Smt. Devineni Radha Rani, leamed counsel for t te petitioner would contend that the contents of the said compla nt lack the 4 K L,] Crl t' \olll12 r)ll0l.1 ingredients of the aforesaid ollences against the petitioner herein. There is delay ol one day in lodging the complaint. Victim was examined on 06. I 1.2023 i.e. after seven days of the alleged incident and after six days of registration ol the said crime. The 2nd respondent is neither victim nor an eye witness. On his complaint, the Police cannot register the aforesaid case against the petitioner and without considering the said aspects, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein, leamed Special Courl took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein. 2"r respondent is not competent to todge a complaint. Even 2nd respondcnt has to submit the said complaint to the District Collector, District Election Officer not to the police, Kattangoor Police Station. The cognizance order dated 06.04.2024 is not on considcratior.r of the aforcsaid aspects. With the said submissions. the petitioner sought to quash the cognizance order.

8. Whereas, Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing Sri Patle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor would contend that though 2nd respondent is not a victim or an eye witness, basing on the complaint of L.W.2, dated 01.11.2023, he has lodged a complaint rvith police on 0l.l 1.2023. He is an informant and therefore, the 5 KL,J ( 11 P NolllT2 of2024 present proceedings are maintainable. On consideratior of the said aspects only, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein and on consideration ofthe said submiss ions, and the rnatbrial available on record, the trial court took cognizance of the aforesaid off-enccs against the petitioner herein. There is rro error in it. The contentions of the petitioner herein are defence wh ch he has to take befbre the trial Clourt and it is lor the trial Court to cc,nsider

9. As discussed supra, the 2"d respondent is neither a victim nor a complainant. He has lodged a complaint dated 0l.l I .20 13 on receipt of the complaint liom [-.W.2

10. Perusal of the said complaint dated 0l.l I 20 13 of L.W.2 and his statement rccorded under Section I 61 of Cr.P.C. vould reveal that the petitioner abused L.W.5, sitting MLA lron Nakrekal Assembly Constituency by referring his caste name and insulted him. The sarne was on 31.10.2023 at about 1.30 a.m. at Kartangoor. Thereflore, he requcsted the 2nd respondent to take actiorr against the petitioner herein. ll. Even according to the 2nd respondent, the atleged incident took place on 31.10.2023 at 1.30 A.M. and he has submirted the said 6 (l_..1 Cd P Nol I l7l ol 20ll \ \ complaint only on 01.11.2023. There is delay of one day. There is no explanation from L.W.2 with regard to the said delay.

12. It is also relevant to note that even L.W.2 is not a victim and he has not stated that he was present on 31.10.2023 at the spot Therefore, he is not an eye witness or victim.

13. Perusal of the record would also reveal that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of victim L.W.5 only on 06. I 1.2023 i.e. after seven (7) days of the alleged incident and six (6 ) days from registration of crime.

14. In his statement, L.W.5, the victim, stated that he came to know about said abusive language used by the petitioner on

31.10.2023 during the election campaign on behalf of Congress party candidate through his close associates.

15. According to him, L.W.2, L.W.3 are claiming that they are doing vegetable and doing farm business. They have sent video through mobile and in pen drive. Perusal of the statements of LWs. 3 and 4 also would reveal that they are not eye witnesses. They have not stated that they were present at the spot. L,W.3 is a businessman and according to him, he is running a diary farm and L.W.4 is running tent house. They have also not stated that they were present at the spot 1 KL.J Crl P Nol ll72 o1 2024 white the petitioner abusing the 2n'r respondent. Withc'ut considering the said aspects, the lnvestigating Olticer laid charge sl eet against the petitioner herein.

16. As discussed supla, the offences alleged against the petitioner herein are r-rnder Sections 504 IPC and Sectior 3(l) (r) (s) of SC/ST Act and the sanle are extractcd below:-

504. Intcntional insult rvith intent to provoke brea:h of the peace: Whoever intontionally insults. and thereby gives pro\')cation to any person. intending or knorving it to be likely that such provocation u'ill causc him to brcak the public peace. or to commit any other olTence, shatl be punishcd with imprisonmen' of either deicription lor zt term rvhich mrr ('\tcnd to two years. or with fine, or \\,ith both. Scction 3(l) (r ) (s) ofthe SC/S'1 .\ct' deals with:- ( I ) Whoever, trot being a tnetttbe t of a Scheduled ( lastc or a Scheduled Iribe.- r) intentionally insults or intimidatcs with intent to bumiliate a member of a Schcduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public victr ; (s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheculed Trihc by caste name in any place within public view;

17. As per the complaint, petitioner abused L.W 5, Sitting MLA from Nakrekal Constituency and even if the said allegations are considered to be true, there is no likelihood of causing provocation to L.W.5 to break public peace, to attract the ollence un,ier Section 504 8 KI-,J Crl P. No I l37l ol 102'l { ol IPC. As discussed supra, L W I is neither an eye witness nor victim. He has todged the aforesaid complaint basing on complaint of t..W.2. The Investigating Oificer did not send the atleged speech of the petitioner to FSL and did not obtain FSL report' There is delay of one day in lodging the complaint' Victim staternent was recorded after seven (07) days there are contradictions in the statements of the aforesaid witnesses.

18. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein was MLC and Deputy Chairman of Legislative Council at the relevant point of time and L.W.5 was Sitting MLA from Nakrekal Assembly Constituency and belongs to Ruting Party' There is politicat rivalry between them'

19. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that he was implicated in the present case crime due to political rivalry between him and L.W.5.

20. As discussed supra, the 2nd respondent is not an eye witness totheincidentorvictim.Hehaslodgedthesaidcomplainton Ol .11.2023 on the complaint of L W'2' Even L'W'2 is neither a victim nor an eye witness. Other witnesses are also did not say that they were present at the spot. Admittedly, there is delay of 24 hours in lodging the complaint by L.W.l the SHO of Nakrekat' Admittedty' the 9 KL,J Crl P Nol Il72 of2024 statement of L.W.5/victim was recorded after sever days of the alleged incident. There is no explanation lrom L.W.1 vith regard to the said delay. Without considering the said aspects, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein. Thus, the contents of cor.nplaint dated 0 I .l | .2023 and stater nents of the aforesaid witnesses lacks the ingredients of the afort said offences alleged against the petitioner herein

21. Vide docket order dated 06.04.2024, learnei Judge, took cognizance of the aloresaid oflences against the pelitioner herein stating that perusal of the charge sheet and other mate"ial on record, found, prima facie case and havinq satisfied, taken cogr izance lor the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and reg istered lt as SC.SPL.No.51 of 2024.

22. As discussed supra, neither L.W.2 nor [. W.1 are eye wrtnesses or vlctlms. Basing on the hearsay evidence, L.W.2 has lodged a complaint with L.W. I and basing on the sz id complaint, L.W. I lodged a complaint with the SHO of Nakrekal I'olice Station. Therefore, they cannot be considered as informants. Without considering the said aspects, the lnvestigating Office r laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein. l0 l\! .J Crl.P. Nol I.172 ol 2021

23. As discussed supra, there is one day delay in lodging the subject complaint and there is no explanation offered by L'W' l '

24. With regard to the unexplained abnormal delay, the Apex Court in Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of T.N.l

22.There has been a gap of more than lour years bctween the initial invcstigation and thc filing of the complaint, and cven after lapse ol substantial amount of timc. no evidence has been provided to sustain the claims in the complaint. As hcld by this Court in Bijoy Singh v. State ol Bihar [I]ilol' Singh v. State of Bihar, (2002) 9 SCC 147 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 10931 . inordinale delay' if not reasonably explained. can bc tatal to the casc of the prosecution' 'lhe relevant extract lionl the judgment is extracted below : (SCC p. 153, para 7) "7. ... Delay wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution. If thc dclal is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawu bur lailure to explain the delay uould rcquire the Court to minutely exatnine the prosecution version for cnsuring itself as to wl.tether any in-nocent person has heen implicated in the crime or not lnsisting upon the accused to seek an explanation of the delay is not the requirement of law lt is always for the prosecution to explain such a delay and if reasonable, ptausible and sulllcient explanation is tendered' no adverse inference can be drawn against it."

23. In the present casc, the rcspondcnt has provided no explanation for the extraordinary' delay ol more than lour years between the ' (2022) t5 SCC 164 / II KL,J Crl.P. Nol ll72 o1 2024 initial site inspcction. the shou-cause notice. and the con plaint. In fact, the absence of such an explanation only prompts th( Court to infer some sinister motive behind initiating thc criminal proceedings.

24. While inordinate delay in itsclf may nor be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained irordinate delay of such length must be taken into considcration r.s a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complain:.

25. In the light of the said submission, it is relc-,,ant to extract paragraph Nos. 15 and l6 of the judgrnent of lhe Apex ]ourt in Hazi lqbal (@ Bala through SPOA vs. State of UP2 and rlre same are as lollows:- l-5. At this stage, we would likc to observe sonrethin.l imporlanr. Whenever an accuscd comes beibre thc Court invoking eithc. the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedu e (CrpC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Articlc 226 oi the Constitution to get thc Irllt or the criminal proceedings quashcd cssentially on thc gro,rnd that suoh proceedings are manilcstly frivolous or vexatious or institr:ted with thc ulterior motive lor wreaking vengeance, then in such circrr nstances thc Court owes a duty to look into thc FIR with car'e and a linle rnore closely. Wc say so because once the complainant decidcs to proceerI against thc accused with an ulterior motive for u.reaking personal vcngealce, etc., then he would ensure that the Flfucomplaint is very well draliccl with all the neccssary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that tle averments macle in the FlR/complaint are such that they disclose tl c necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged of'fencc. Therefore, it u,ill not bejust enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the F R/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining u,hether the necessary irrgredients to constitute the alleged o ffence are disclosed or not. [n frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a dury to look into many othrr attending circumstances emerging from the record ol the case over alC above thc Order dated 08.08.2021 in Crl.A No.2i4,i of20?l ofthe Apex Coun l) KL.] Crl.P Noll3?2 of202'l . '..{ "o.rr." -it" avernents and, if need be, with duc care and circumspection try to read in between the [ines The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC the Constitutron nced not restrict itself only to the stage of ZjO "f "r'A""i" is empowercd to take into account the overall circumstances ;;;;ri tt.-initiutio,vt"gistration of the case as well as the matcrials i;;;; of investigation Takc for instance the case on hand' ;i#"i t, ,h" Multiple FlRs have becn regisiered over a perio<l of time It is in the of such circumstuntet the registration of.muttiple FlRs assumes ilG;;il issuJ of wreaking vengeance out of importance, thereby attractlng private or personal grudge as alleged' 16. In State of Andhra Pradcsh v Golconda ['inga Swamy' (2004) 6 SCC ;;r;;r;;-Jrdg" e"n"h oi trti' cou't elaborated on the tvpes of materials the High Court can ut'"" io quash an fln, ffc Court drew a fine distinction bctween consiclcration ol materials that were tendered as evidence Only such material that evidence and appreciatio''' oi manifestly fails to prove tt'" at"u''ution in the F'IR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held:- "5. ...Authority of the court exists for advancement ofjustice and if any to ubr." ttrat authoritv so as to. produce iniustice' the ,;;*;;i;';;" abuse lt would be an abuse of the court has power to p'"'"nt court to allow uny u"tion wtichrvould result in injustice ,r*"* "flfr" and prevent promotion o'lu"it" ln exercise of the powers cou( would U"-iir"in"a'a quash any proceeding if it finds thai initiation or th-e process of court or quashing of continuance of it amounts a Jur* "r il;;;;;;;*;t"ss would othcrrvise serve the ends of-jqtice. wn:L'1: ;fi;ic.ei. disclo"sed by the complaint' the-court m.ay,elamtne the questlon of fact. When a complaint i' l"'gn' to bc quashed' it is permissible to look into the materials to utt"tt i"ftut the ctmplainant has alleged and cven if rhe a[egations are accepted in ffi;;;;"ii;""" toto. i. -"i" "r, -t'"h ""n

6. In R.P. Kapur v- State of Punjab' AIR t960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239 ' iiir^c""n summarised some cat"gories of cases..where inherent power can and should be exercisJto qu"ash the proceedings : (AIR p'869' para 6) (i) where it manifestly appears that there. is a legal bar against the institution or contlnuancc e g want of sanction; 1l KL,J lrl.P Nol ll72 of2024 (ii) where the allegations in the first information rcporl or complaint its face vJue and accepted in their entirety do no1 constitute iu[". the offence alleged; ^, "use (iii) where the allegations constitute an offencc' but therc s no legal evidence adduced oi the evidence adduced clearly or manife;tly {ails to . prove the charge. 7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bcar in rnind the wh"'elhe'e is no legal evidence olvhere there is distincLion between a which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations mal[e' and a casc "riJ.n"" *fr"r",f,*.islegatevidenceu'hich,onappreciation'malormaynot When exercising juriidiction under Section 482 of .rpp"n-ifr" the Code, the High Court would not oidinarily embark uptn an enquiry whcther ihe cvidince in question is reliable or not or rihether on a ,""t"."tf" appreciation of ii accusation would not be sustained- That is the t'unction of ihe trial Judge. Judicial process' no doubt shoL ld not be an instrument of oppression, or, needicss harassment Cou t should ' be in exercising discretion and shluld take all "i.",r.rp""t relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before is: uing process' lestitwouldbeaninstrumentinthchandsofaprivateclmplainanlto unleash vendctta to harass any person needlessly At the s lme time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused lo ;horl-circuit a pr".""r,i"nandbringaboutitssuddcndeath-"(limphasisslpplicd) ""*saiions. -judicious

26. In State of Haryana vs' Bhaian Lalr'the 'A'pex Courl has atso taid down certain guidelines/parameters for exerci;e of powel of this Court under Section 482 Cr' P C and the same are extracted herein:- "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if thel are taken at their face value and accepted in their ent rety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information rt port and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIJL do * *not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an r 1992 Supp (l) SCC 335 -I l4 KL,J Crl.P. Nol ll72 0t2024 investigation by police officers under Scction 156(l) of the Codc except under an order of a Magistrate within the purvicw of Section 1 55(2) ofthc Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and thc evidencc collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offcnce and make out a case against the accuscd. (4) Where thc allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable oflence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Codc. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbablc on the basis of which no prudent pelson can ever rcach a just conclusion that there is sulficicnt ground for proceeding against thc aec used. (6) Where thcre is an exprcss legal bal engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance ol'the proccedings and/or where there is a specific provision in thc Code or Act concemed, providing elficacious redress lor the gricvance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal procccding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrcaking vengcance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." With the said findings, relying on the parameters laid down in Bhajanlal (supra), the Apex Court quashed the FIR against the accused therein. l5 KL,J arl P. Nol 1372 012024

27.In the light of the same, continuation of th,: proceedings against the petitioner herein is abuse of process of law. lherefore, the impugned cognizance order dated 06.04.2024 is liable to be set aside.

28. Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed. Tlre cognizance order dated 06.04.2024 taking cognizance for the offenc:s punishable under Sections 504 of IPC and Section 3(l) (r ) (s) cf Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocitie s) Act, 1 989 (Amendrnent Act, 2015) and issuing summons to t he petitioner herein/accused in SC.SPL.No.51 of 2024 by the Speoial Sessions Court 1'or SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989, at Nalgonda, is ;et aside and consequently the proceedings in SC.SPL.No.S I of 202 I pending on the flle of Special Sessions Court for SCs/STs (POA) {ct, 1989, ar Nalgonda are quashed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, i - any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// _1 SDr \E \ - V. HARI PRASAD PUTY REGISTRAR JECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Special Sessions Court for SCs/STs (POA) Act, Nalgonda. 2. The Station House Officer, Nakrekal Police Station, Nalgo.rda District' 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Slate of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri M. Rajender Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies r Kam/gh HIGH COURT DATED:01 10412025 ORDER CRLP.No.11372 of 2024 -ri i ir':: i; 'c.'\. o ,J 12 JUN zffi i ,'4TCl z ()] ,t ALLOWING THE GRIMINAL PETITION @#v