Telangana High Court
Mohd. Talib Ali vs The State Of Telangana on 24 March, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9570 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the
petitioner-accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in
C.C.No.1299 of 2018 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad (for short ‘trial Court’), pertaining to
Crime No.236 of 2011 of P.S. Saifabad, registered for the offence under
Section 382 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC‘).
2. Heard Mr. C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent-State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2-
de facto complainant. Perused the record.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.05.2011, accused Nos.1 and
4 in the crime have snatched away the gold chain from the neck of
de facto complainant’s wife. During the course of investigation, the
accused Nos.1 and 4 confessed that they along with the accused No.2
and the petitioner-accused No.3 have committed 37 thefts. The Police
registered a case in Crime No.236 of 2011 against them for the aforesaid
offence. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before
the trial Court. The case against the petitioner-accused No.3 was split up
and re-numbered as C.C.No.1299 of 2018.
2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the
petitioner is no way concerned with the offence alleged and nothing was
recovered from his possession, basing on the confession of accused
Nos.1 and 4, the petitioner-accused No.3 was falsely implicated in the
case. He further submits that there are no specific allegations against the
petitioner-accused No.3 and the ingredients for the offence under Section
382 of IPC are not made out. The case against accused No.2 has
already ended in acquittal before the trial Court. Since the petitioner-
accused No.3 also stands on the same footing, he prayed to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in
the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit
case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to
dismiss the petition.
6. In the Judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan
Lal and others 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
The following categories of cases can be stated by way of
illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or
the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be
exercised by the High Court 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 sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or1
1992 SCC (Cri) 426
3rigid 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 and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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;
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence 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 Code;
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is 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.
7. According to Section 382 of IPC, whoever commits theft, having
made preparation for causing death, or hurt, or restraint, or fear of death,
or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to committing of such
theft, or in order to the effecting of his escape after the committing of
4
such theft, or in order to the retaining of property taken by such theft,
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
8. A perusal of the record discloses that on the basis of confession of
accused Nos.1 and 4, the petitioner-accused No.3 was arrayed as an
accused in the crime and nothing was recovered from his possession.
According to guideline Nos.1 and 3 of Bhajanlal‘s case (supra), the
allegations made in the FIR or charge sheet taken at their face value do
not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the
petitioner-accused No.3. As seen from the entire contents of the charge
sheet, there is no mention in the charge sheet as to in what manner the
petitioner-accused No.3 is connected to the present crime. No
independent witness is examined to prove the involvement of the
petitioner-accused No.3. So also, there is no specific allegation against
the petitioner-accused No.3 with regard to commission of theft having
made preparation for causing death or hurt or restraint, hence, the
ingredients of offence under Section 382 of IPC are not made out.
9. For the foregoing discussion and as the present case falls within
the ambit of guideline Nos.1 and 3 of Bhajanlal‘s case (supra), the
petitioner cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same
would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific
5
allegations made against him. Hence, the proceedings against the
petitioner are liable to be quashed.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings
against the petitioner-accused No.3 in C.C.No.1299 of 2018 on the file of
the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, are hereby
quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 24.03.2025
rev
[ad_1]
Source link