HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7165 OF 2007 DATE:23-12-2010 BETWEEN Tejdeep Kaur Menon …Petitioner AND Haritha & others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7165 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.166 of 2003 on the file of Begumpet Police Station, Hyderabad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 380 and 506 IPC. The respondents 1 and 2, who are wife and husband lodged a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad alleging that one Krishnaiah, Managing Director of Fly Tech Aviation Academy and Chairman of Sigma Online, Hyderabad is a close friend of grandfather of the first respondent-complainant. While the first respondent-complainant was working at Appollo Hospitals, she treated Mr.Krishnaiah like her father, who was suffering from ill-health and rendered all the medical facilities. Suddenly, on one day during April, 2001, the wife, son and daughter of Mr.Krishnaiah along with 20 goondas attacked her residence at Flat No.106, B.1 Block, R.K. Towers, Mayuri Marg, Begumpet and harassed her, threatened her to leave Hyderabad or else, they would not spare her. The said incident had happened without the knowledge of Mr.Krishnaiah. Later, he came to her Flat and escorted her to Begumpet Police Station, where, she lodged a complaint against them, but there was no action from the police. When the complainant and her family members were away from Hyderabad, again the family members of Krishnaiah attacked her house in January, 2002. After the said incident, Krishnaiah left his house and his whereabouts were not known for four months and one day, he came to the flat of the complainant and assured that he would give protection to her and informed that after settling her problems, he would go to Ashram life at Bangalore. He also tried to adopt the de facto complainant as his daughter, but after the legal advice from the advocates, he dropped the proposal. Due to the repeated threatening from his family members, Krishnaiah shifted the complainant to the flat of his friend’s son bearing flat No.502, ‘C’ Block, R.K. Towers, Mayur Marg, Begumpet, Hyderabad. While so, when the complainant and Krishnaiah were in the flat, at 7.30 a.m. on 9.8.2002, the wife, son and daughter and daughter-in-law of Krishnaiah along with others again attached the flat. Out of the said persons, the complainant could recognize one person by name Chandrasekhar (Chandu) working in Sigma Online. They beat the complainant, Krishnaiah mercilessly and tortured till 6.30 p.m. At the same time, the petitioner herein, who was working as Inspector General of Police, Special Protection Force along with three others came to her flat and harassed the complainant till 8.30 p.m. She beat the complainant mercilessly with lathis and weapons and even she ordered the other male persons to take out the clothes from the body of complainant and rape her. Further she took the signatures of complainant on 50 empty white papers, stamped papers by showing pistol and forcibly took away the cheque books also. She further threatened the complainant that she would book a case against the complainant as prostitute. She also threatened to encounter the complainant and warned her not to stay at Hyderabad. That apart, the petitioner took Rs.20,000/- cash, 8 tulas of gold, 2 cell phones, educational certificates, bank pass books, cheque books, auto R.C. book etc. Thereafter, the petitioner sent the complainant along with three goondas, who lifted her and threw into a Tata Indica car. The goondas dropped the complainant at Imlibun Bus Station. When the said complaint was forwarded to the concerned police, the above crime was registered for the offences as aforementioned which is now sought to be quashed. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the punishment provided for the offences under Sections 447, 448 and 323 is one year and for 506 is two years and only for the offence under Section 380 punishment is provided up to 7 years and therefore, no charge sheet can be filed at this stage for the offences under Sections 447, 448, 326, 323 and 506 IPC as there is no stay granted by this Court initially, but was granted only on 3.3.2010. Whereas the crime was registered on 25.4.2003 and therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. In the absence of any charge for the offence under Section 380 IPC, mentioning Section 380 IPC is only a camouflage to overcome the limitation and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. Further section 164 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses do not speak about the offence under Section 380 IPC. Learned senior counsel submits that speedy trial also includes speedy investigation and therefore, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed and in support of his submission, he placed reliance on Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra & others[1]. Per contra, Sri Bojja Tarakaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2-complainants contends that the allegations in the complaint alone are to be taken into consideration but not the statements of witnesses so recorded, if any, during the course of investigation. As the petitioner is responsible for stalling the investigation, she cannot seek to quash the proceedings on the ground of delay. The statement of Krishnaiah cannot be taken into consideration at this stage as it pertains to the evidence and it amounts to taking the evidence into consideration for acquittal, which can be done only by the criminal Court. As per the complaint allegations, the petitioner was present at the scene of offence and she instigated the other persons to perpetuate the crime. The petitioner being a responsible police office, instead of preventing the harassment to the woman, she herself abused the complainant in filthy language and harassed her. The limitation as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is prescribed only for filing the complaint or initiation of the prosecution, but not for taking the cognizance of the offence and for the said proposition, he placed reliance on Bharat Damodar Kale and another v. State of A.P.[2]. It is now fairly well settled that for quashing any proceedings, the illustrations set out by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal[3] have to be taken into consideration. The complaint allegations prima facie would go to show that the petitioner was present when the goondas attacked the complainant and Krishnaiah and they also took away the cash, gold, cell phones etc. belonged to the complainant from the residential flat of the complainant and that the complainant was brutally assaulted. Thus, the allegations in the complaint would constitute offences under various provisions for which the crime was registered. The allegations would go to show the theft of cash, gold, cell phones, certificates from the house of the complainant, for which, 7 years punishment is prescribed and as per sub-section (3) of Section 468 Cr.P.C., the period of limitation in relation to the offence which may be tried together shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with more severe punishment. Therefore, the contention that the prosecution is liable to be quashed on the ground of limitation as no charge sheet could be filed cannot be accepted. In view of the same and as the present case do not fall under any of the illustrations carved out by the Supreme Court in Bhajanlal’s case (3 supra), it is not a fit case for quashing the impugned proceedings. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 23, 2010 Tsr. [1] 2008 CRI.L.J.3944 [2] (2003) 8 SCC 559 [3] AIR 1992 SC 605