IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 5133 of 2007 Between: P.Narayanaswamy, S/o Seshachary, aged about 45 years, Occ:President, of Palamoori Contract Labour Union, Regd.No.A-1868, affiliated to International Federation of Building and Wood Workers, Geneva, R/o 7-5-12, Venkateshwara Colony, Mahabubnagar Town, Mahabubnagar District, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., Home Department, represented by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.5133 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to quash all the proceedings in Crime No.340 of 2006 of Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station, Mahabubnagar Distrtict for the offence punishable under Section 387 of I.PC. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner is the president of Palamoori Contract Labour Union, Mahabubnagar District. The team of petitioner’s union visited Karnataka, Goa, Madhaya Pradesh, Delhi, Gujarath, Tamilnadu, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Assam, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab states and submitted representations to the concerned authorities for taking steps for the welfare of the Palamoori workers who are working as bonded labour. It is stated that the petitioner’s union filed W.P.No.27305 of 1996 seeking a direction to the authorities in other States to cooperate with its team in the course of enquiry about the conditions of Palamoori workers in various States. It is further stated that petitioner’s team enquired about the conditions of Palamoori workers in the aforesaid States and represented to the concerned authorities for taking steps under various laws like Labour Act, Minimum Wages Act, Inter State Migrant Act, Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976, Contract Labour Act etc., It is further stated that the petitioner is also a member of United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (Habitat) Centre Des Nations Unies Pour Les Establishments Humains, Centro De Las Naciones Unidas Para Los Asentamientos Humanos, sponsored by the U.N.O. It is also stated that the petitioner’s union filed Writ Petition being W.P.No.587 of 1997 in the High Court of Karnataka for taking steps by the authorities for the welfare of the Bonded Labour of Palamoori, Mahabubnagar District, Andhra Pradesh. Petitioner was also selected by the Union Government as Member of Advisory Committee of Beedi workers. The facts relating to the present case, as stated by the petitioner are that about 280 workers belonging to S.T. community of Mahabubnagar District were taken as bonded Labour to work under the 3rd respondent in the railway construction works at Igathpoor of Maharashtra State and since the condition of the workers was very pathetic, the petitioner union submitted representations to all the concerned authorities including Honourable President of India and Prime Minister of India. The 3rd respondent issued cheques for an amount of more than Rs.33.00 Lakhs to the workers towards payment of arrears and the 3rd respondent drew all the bills due to him from the railways. However, the cheques issued by 3rd respondent were dishonoured. In this connection Police, Koilkonda Police Station, Mahabubnagar District registered a case in Crime No.12 of 2006 against the 3rd respondent on 27.01.2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 I.P.C.; Sections 16, 17, 18 and 19 of Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976 and also under the provisions of S.Cs. & S.Ts. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is further stated that after the above case was registered against the 3rd respondent, the latter made a complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner herein was making phone calls many a times demanding extortions and that the matter should be settled with the petitioner, otherwise his business would come to an end in Government departments. 2nd respondent registered the said complaint as a case in Crime No.340 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 387 of I.P.C. against the petitioner on 18.10.2006. Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing of proceedings. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent stating that during the course of investigation, it revealed that the petitioner is the Union President of Mahabubnagar District Labours, whereas the 3rd respondent is a contractor. The petitioner sent the labour of Koilkonda Mandal of Mahabubnagar District to attend the work under the 3rd respondent and since the 3rd respondent had not paid the daily wages to the labour, a case in Crime No.12 of 2006 under Section 420 of I.P.C.; Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act; Sections 16 to 19, 23 of Bonded Labour Abolition Act, 1976 and Section 3 (i) (x) of S.Cs. and S.Ts (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered at Koikonda police Station. The investigation further disclosed that the petitioner threatened the 3rd respondent with dire consequences on 17.10.2006 and tried to extort money in the name of labour in front of Rural Police Station, Mahabubnagar. It is further stated that basing on the complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent, a case in Crime No.340 of 2006 for the offence under Section 387 of I.P.C. was registered and after completion of investigation a charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner on 29.03.2007. It is further stated that the order of this Court in WPMP No.6565 of 2007 dated 15.03.2007 granting interim stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.340 of 2006 was received by him on 29.03.2007 at 1400 hours i..e, after filing of the charge sheet in the said crime against the petitioner herein and therefore, he could not implement the order of this Court, which is neither willful nor wanton. It is further stated the police registered the crime against the petitioner on mere suspicion is not correct and prima facie the contents of the complaint of the 3rd respondent appeared to be cognizable in nature and hence he registered the case against the petitioner herein. An additional reply affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner stating that this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.340 of 2006 on 15.03.2007 and the same was made absolute on 07.08.2007. It is further stated that this Court by order dated 21.08.2007 directed the 2nd respondent to produce charge sheet and entire case records in connection with Crime No.340 of 2006. It is further stated that he applied for certified copies of charge sheet and statements of all witnesses in Crime No.340 of 2006, on 30.08.2007, and the Court below returned the said application on 31.08.2007 stating that the charge sheet was not filed in Crime No.340 of 2006. It is further stated that the statement of the 2nd respondent that he had filed charge sheet on 29.03.2007 is not correct and therefore he seeks quashing of proceedings in Crime No.340 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar. While admitting this writ petition, this Court, on 15.03.2007, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.340 of 2006 and the same was made absolute on 07.08.2007. Thus there was stay of further proceedings being operative in the case and according to the additional material papers filed by the petitioner, it is noticed from the endorsement made on the copy application filed by the petitioner before the trial court that the charge sheet was not filed in the case. According to 2nd respondent, the charge sheet was filed on 29.3.2007. Admittedly the stay was operative as on that day. However, I would not go into the said controversy at this stage. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present case has been filed against the petitioner with false allegations of extortion and it was foisted as a counter-blast to the case registered against 3rd respondent. He has further submitted that even on the face of the allegations made in the complaint, those allegations are not sufficient to make out an offence under Section 387 of IPC. He also has submitted that the petitioner being the president of Mahabubnagar District Palamoori Contract Labour Union, was highlighting the plight of bonded labour at the hands of contractors, and as he was instrumental in getting the arrears of wages to the labour, he was made scapegoat and being involved in the present criminal case, which has no connection to him. The learned counsel submits that this Court has ample powers to quash criminal proceedings when there were malicious and aimed at to rope in the petitioner with false allegations. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Home has contended that the police has thoroughly investigated into the matter and found that that there is a case of extortion made out against the petitioner under Section 387 of IPC and it is for the trial court to decide the case and therefore, there is no need for this Court to interfere with the case at this stage. The complaint given by 3rd respondent and on which basis the criminal case was registered against the petitioner reads, inter alia, as follows, “I received a unknown call from south side that union leader is very dangerous, he may kidnap, please not to go, then I afraid. I cancelled the ticket. After two days I surrendered to Mumbai Police and come to Mahabubnagar for investigation. Two-Three times I received call from south side that you settle with the Narayana Swamy and get rid off otherwise, he can arrange that your business would come to close in Government departments. Therefore, I request you to take necessary action against Narayana Swamy and others who wants to extort money from contractors fraudulently.” On the basis of these allegations, the police registered a crime against the petitioner under Section 387 of IPC. According to the provisions of Section 387 of IPC, there must be two ingredients viz., one must put or attempt to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or any other and that the said attempt shall be with respect to extortion. A reading of complaint shows that some bold allegations were made that the union leader is very dangerous, he may kidnap, that the 3rd respondent received phone calls from south side that he may settle with the writ petitioner and get rid off, otherwise he can arrange that the business of 3rd respondent would be closed in Government departments and that action was sought to be taken against the writ petitioner and others who wanted to extort money from contractors fraudulently. Nowhere it is alleged by 3rd respondent in the complaint that the writ petitioner made those phone calls and threatened him to settle the matter and that he tried to extort money from him. It is not alleged that the writ petitioner put or attempted to put the 3rd respondent in fear of death or grievous hurt and that the writ petitioner tried to make extortion from him. Only general allegation was made in the complaint that the writ petitioner and others want to extort money from contractors fraudulently. The exact amount that was tried to be extorted is also not stated in the complaint. It is also not alleged that the writ petitioner wanted to extort money from the 3rd respondent himself. In the absence of these material allegations, I am of the opinion that the writ petitioner cannot be prosecuted. This case appears to be a counterblast to the case earlier registered against the 3rd respondent. The writ petitioner was active and instrumental in the cause of bonded labour and it appears that with his persuasions, the labour got their arrears of wages and the cheques given in that regard were bounced back. In this back ground, the present case appears to have been motivated with the earlier case against 3rd respondent. There are no material allegations in the complaint, which are sufficient to proceed against the petitioner. It is stated in the counter-affidavit filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahabubnagar Rural police station that the investigation officer examined three witnesses and recorded their statements and the evidence collected during the course of investigation established that the petitioner is the union president of Mahabubnagar District Labours, whereas the 3rd respondent is a contractor, the petitioner sent labour of Koilkonda Mandal to attend the work under 3rd respondent and since the 3rd respondent has not paid the daily wages to the labour, a case in Cr.No. 12 of 2066 under Sections 420 IPC and other provisions of law was registered. It is further stated that the investigation further discloses that the petitioner threatened the 3rd respondent/complainant with dire consequences on 17.10.2006 at about 1930 hours and tried to extort money in the name of labour in front of Rural Police Station, Mahabubnagar. No offence could be made out with the first part of the investigation and the second part of investigation does not find support from the complaint and it is against the contents of the complaint. Therefore, even on the face of the investigation report, the case does not stand against the writ petitioner. It is understandable that if there are material allegations in the complaint, those can be enquired with by the trial Court after the charge sheet was filed. But when the allegations in the complaint itself are vague and do not stand the test of ingredients of an offence, definitely those criminal proceedings can be quashed even at the stage of threshold. In view of what I have opined above, I find that this is a fit case for interference by this Court to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Accordingly the Writ Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings in Cr.No. 340 of 2006 under Section 387 of Mahabubnagar Rural Police station are quashed. No costs. ______________________________ 10.11.2009 GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J GSn.