T K RAMAMANI Vs. AKKALA RAMA SAIBABA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners/accused in Cr No 15/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, had filed the present Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter in short referred to as "Code") praying for quashing of the proceedings in the aforesaid complaint The 1st respondent/complainant in C C No 15/ 2005 is the Chairperson of the Gadwal Municipality The petitioners/accused at the relevant point of time were the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal, Mandal Revenue Officer, Gadwal, Manager, Gadwal Municipality, Town Planning Superintendent, Gadwal Municipality and Sub-Inspector of Police, Gadwal Town Police Station The petitioners/accused are shown specifically by their names and further describing their Offices too The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gadwal had taken the case on file for offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 504 and 509 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short referred to as "IPC") as against the petitioners/accused 1 to 5

(2.) Contentions of Sri Bali Reddy - Sri Bali Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners had taken this Court through the allegations made in the complaint and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the acts complained of should be taken as having happened during the course of discharge of their duties in their respective official capacities and hence without obtaining prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code, the very taking of cognizance of these offences as against the petitioners/accused by the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also would maintain that on a careful reading of the contents of the complaint and the averments made in the aforesaid complaint, it is clear that the same had been thought of more as a political game and no doubt several serious allegations were made. The learned Counsel would maintain that these allegations made in the complaint prima facie are to be taken as false or absurd especially in the light of the stand taken by the 1st respondent/complainant in the report given to the S.I. of Police, Gadwal dated 20-1-2005 whereunder it was specified that she wanted to proceed with the hunger strike till the statute which was removed is again erected at the self-same place and till the concerned Officers are suspended. The learned Counsel also pointed out that it was specified that without any reason she was beaten and the statue was removed. On the strength of the false report given by the Manager, Biyabani certain hired goondas without any reasons had removed the statue and beat her and for that reason she had decided to proceed with the hunger strike unto death till her demands are satisfied. The learned Senior Counsel would maintain that in the light of this report it can be taken that all the allegations made in the complaint are afterthought only with a view to implicate the petitioners/accused. The learned Counsel also further explained the scope and ambit of the orders made by this Court in Writ Petition No.6764/2003 and also in Review W.P.M.P.No.27846/2004in the afore said Writ Petition. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the correspondence in relation to this episode and had pointed out to the guidelines prescribed by the Government and G.O.Ms.No.55,Transport, Roads& Buildings (R-1) Department dated 8-4-2003. The learned Senior Counsel ultimately would conclude that even if on a reading of the allegations it is to be taken that the petitioners/ accused/officials exceeded and had been a bit over zealous in discharging their duties, this would not alterthe situation in any way as far as the ground of want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code is concerned. The learned Senior Counsel thoroughly had pointed out to several of the proceedings and the internal correspondence in this regard.

(3.) Contentions of Sri Srinivas Reddy: Sri Srinivas Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent/complainant had taken this Court through the orders made in W.P.No.6764/2003 and also in W.P.M.P.No.27846/2004 and would maintain that by virtue of the modified order, the 1st respondent is at liberty to install the statute at any place other than the Rajiv Chowk of main road, Gadwal. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the Municipal Council's resolution and had further pointed out to the sworn statements which had been recorded wherere specific allegations had been made as against the petitioners/accused. The learned Counsel would maintain that the acts complained of are such atrocious acts which cannot be said to have any nexus at all to their so-called official duties and hence under the guise of alleged discharging of official duties the petitioners/accused cannot escape from the criminal liability in the light of the specific allegations made which may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the 1st respondent had not violated any of the guidelines specified in G.O.Ms.No.55 aforesaid and in fact as a Chairperson heading a Local Body she had proceeded with erection or installation of the statue in accordance with the procedure only, but for the reasons best known, may be due to political pressure, the petitioners forgetting their official capacities had resorted to such illegal acts which would constitute specific offences and hence the proceedings cannot be quashed atthis stage. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on a decision of the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India.