LAWS(TLNG)-2019-2-141

K V SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. STATE OF A.P.

Decided On February 18, 2019
K V Subrahmanyam Appellant
V/S
STATE OF A.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the two accused in C.C.No.1351 of 2012 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar, taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 290 & 504 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') from the police final report of Saroornagar Police Station, Cyberabad, which is outcome of CrimeNo.682 of 2012, dated 25.10.2012, registered for the said offences of the report of the de facto complainant Smt. M.Prasanna Laxmi, Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, New Gaddiannaram, after examination of the de facto complainant and three more witnesses by the two Police Officers, who conducted investigation among L.Ws.1 to 6 viz., M.Nageshwar Rao of New Gaddiannaram, Md. Layaq Ali Khan, Superintendent and Chithari Laxmi Narsimha Varma, Assistant Director, respectively. The said cognizance order is under impugnment herein the quash petition saying on the face value of the reading of the police final report from the investigation referred supra, none of the ingredients of any of the offences that attract and thereby the continuation of proceedings are nothing but abuse of process by drawing attention to the two expressions of the Apex Court on the scope of Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') of Dr.Sharada Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar, 1977 1 SCC 505 saying where the allegations set out in the complaint or charge sheet do not constitute any offence, it is competent for the High Court to quash the proceedings by exercise of the inherent power and the other expression of Asmathunnisa v. State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another, 2011 11 SCC 259 particularly placed reliance on para 13, the three ingredients that are referred laid down in R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 AIR(SC) 866 by placing reliance on the second ingredient as to where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged and coming to the ingredients of Section 504 IPC, placed reliance on the expression of the Apex Court in Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2013 4 SCC 44 particularly observations at paras 12 and 13 saying Section 504 IPC comprises of ingredients of intentional insult, the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted and the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence and one of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient.

(2.) The learned Public Prosecutor submits that each case depends upon own facts and there are no precedents on facts, particularly in criminal law, but for the principle laid down in the expressions to be considered and there is no quarrel on the propositions placed reliance, but for to say the very act of abusing over phone and again handing over the phone to the husband cause abused itself is sufficient to say that there is intentional insult from the investigation, particularly from the report and statement of de facto complainant and her husband and thereby sought for dismissal of the quash petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent State and perused the material on record.