Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 323
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.
Elvis Stephenson – Appellant
Vs.
Jerusalem Mathai and Ors. – Respondent
Crl.P.M.P. No. 5823 of 2015 in Crl.P. No. 5520 of 2015
Decided On: 29.06.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Gandra Mohan Rao
For Respondents/Defendant: Siddhartha Luthra, Senior Counsel on behalf of P. Ravi Kumar
Headnote:
Criminal Law – Criminal Trial – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 302 and 482 – Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 14 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120-B and 34 – Anti Corruption Bureau and investigation – Contempt of Court – Seeking relief of quashing the aforesaid complaint filed by me on 18.6.2015. It is submitted that invoking the extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction of this Honble Court u/s. 482, by an absconder (2nd Respondent) is a clear one of abuse of process of law – praying to recuse from the hearing of the Criminal Petition No. 5520 of 2015 (filed by A.4 of the above crime to quash the crime proceedings – an F.I.R. was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau and investigation was taken up. The 2nd Respondent herein is absconding since registration of the crime. For more than 25 days, the 2nd Respondent is avoiding the investigating agency. I further understand that the 2nd Respondent is taking shelter in Vijayawada City in State of Andhra Pradesh (outside the State of Telangana). I further understand that the 2nd Respondent while absconding, filed a complaint with the local Police of Vijayawada making certain allegations against the Honble Chief Minister of State of Telangana. It appears, the Police of Vijayawada town registered an F.I.R., based on the complaint made by the 2nd Respondent. It is thus evident that the 2nd Respondent is available to lodge a criminal complaint in the other State, but he is making all efforts to avoid ongoing investigation in the above case – Held, Apart from Section 302 Cr.P.C. taken by Section 24(8) proviso (amended) Cr.P.C, he can be permitted to participate to conduct the prosecution and even oppose the quash proceeding, but he has no right without basis to make accusations against the Court by filing an application for recusal, when the main person that is the State represented by the concerned police have taken cognizance of the matter by registration of the Crime and participated in opposing the quash proceeding and not even questioned the docket proceedings and not even whispered anything of the order was passed without hearing, when it is not even his case of he was present or got personal knowledge and not even his case that State is acting adverse to his rights. It is needless to say without prejudice to contention of the quash petitioner that, he is innocent and the defacto-complainant is the prime accused and not a victim even. It is thus nothing but browbeating on his part by making untrue and baseless accusations for purpose of recusal. The Court need not fall pray for such an attempt for recusal – It is settled law that the administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice of the High Court alone and it is his prerogative to distribute business of the High Court both judicial and administrative, the Chief Justice is since the master of the roster and he alone has the prerogative to constitute Benches of the Court and allocate cases to the Benches so constituted (see State of Rajasthan Vs. Prakash Chand (1998) 1 S.C.C. 1, R. Rathinam Vs. State (2000) 2 S.C.C. 391 and State of U.P. Vs. Neeraj Chaubey (2010) 10 S.C.C. 320)" - the Honble Chief Justice can take any administrative decision if at all the matter is to be listed before any another bench – Order accordingly.
Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.
The petitioner (who is the de facto complainant in Cr. No. 11/ACB-CR/2015 of ACB, City Range I, Hyderabad) filed the present petition praying to recuse from the hearing of the Criminal Petition No. 5520 of 2015 (filed by A.4 of the above crime to quash the crime proceedings).
1. The petition with grounds for recusal supported by his verified affidavit also with signature of the advocate reads as follows:
"I, Elvis Stephenson, S/o R.E. Stephenson, aged about 58 years, MLA of the State of Telangana, Resident of H. No. 6-2-101/1/7, New Boiguda, Secunderabad, do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm and state as follows:
2. I am the complainant in the above registered Crime Number on the file of Anti Corruption Bureau Police Station, City Range-I, Hyderabad and also 2nd Respondent in Crl.P. No. 5520/2015 and the Petitioner herein as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case as hereunder.
3. It is submitted, I have addressed a letter to the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) on 28.05.2015 as follows:
"Mr. Elvis Stephenson
MLA (Nominated
Dt. 28.5.2015
To
The D.G.
Anti Corruption Bureau,
Hyderabad, Telangana.
Sir,
I would like to bring to your notice that I have been approached by Mr. Mathias Jerusalem, who affected me on account of Rs. 2 crores and a ticket to leave the country on vote in favour of the TDP party.
I was also contacted by Bishop Sebastin Harry who offered me a sum of RS.5 crore to abstain from casting myvote for the Biennial election to be held on the 1st day of June, 2015 or to vote in favour of the TDP Party. I was also informed that the entire transaction will be dealt by Mr. Revanth Reddy personally.
Since, this act is considered as an illegal offence including bribery and voting against my free will. I request you to please take necessary action in lieu of the Indian Law.
Yours sincerely
Sd/-
Elvis Stephenson, MLA"
4. It is submitted that pursuant to my complaint, an F.I.R. was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau and investigation was taken up. The 2nd Respondent herein is absconding since registration of the crime. For more than 25 days, the 2nd Respondent is avoiding the investigating agency. I further understand that the 2nd Respondent is taking shelter in Vijayawada City in the State of Andhra Pradesh (outside the State of Telangana). I further understand that the 2nd Respondent while absconding, filed a complaint with the local Police of Vijayawada making certain allegations against the Hon'ble Chief Minister of State of Telangana. It appears, the Police of Vijayawada town registered an F.I.R., based on the complaint made by the 2nd Respondent. It is thus evident that the 2nd Respondent is available to lodge a criminal complaint in the other State, but he is making all efforts to avoid ongoing investigation in the above case.
5. It is submitted that the day-to-day investigation reported in electronic and print media clearly showed an attempt to destroy the democratic process by using the money to buy votes. Hence, there is considerable public interest in the ongoing investigation and it has got nation wide attention.
6. While the matter stood thus, the 2nd Respondent filed a Petition No. 5520/2015 before this Hon'ble Court u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking relief of quashing the aforesaid complaint filed by me on 18.6.2015. It is submitted that invoking the extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court u/s. 482, by an absconder (2nd Respondent) is a clear one of abuse of process of law.
7. I further understand the following event took place before this Hon'ble Court on 18.6.2015 as detailed below:
(a) It is submitted that Criminal Petition No. 5520 of 2015 was listed on 18.06.2015 as item No. 157 before this Hon'ble Court (Hon'ble Dr. Justice B. Siva Sankara Rao).
(b) It is submitted that in ordinary course of business of the Court, the case filed by the 2nd respondent may not have reached for hearing on that day.
(c) It is submitted, at about 8.30 A.M the office
