The High Court, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., should not quash proceedings unless the arguments are substantiated; serious allegations warrant a trial to clarify facts.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioner/accused No.1, to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1771 of 2022 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 269 , 270 and 504 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.02.2022, at about 11:00 hours, the petitioner called respondent No.2 to his chamber and asked whether respondent No.2 has knowledge about the conduct rules, in rash and harsh manner, insulting her in front of the staff members. Respondent No.2 left the chamber stating that she will submit her grievance in written as she suffered with COVID due to insufficient supply of PPE kits and gloves during the official working hours of COVID Pandemic in organization. It is alleged that the petitioner called respondent No.2 to his chamber only to harass her and delayed her promotion by repeatedly asking about her research work which was already started by respondent No.2. Hence, a case was registered vide Crime No. 65 of 2022 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.1771 of 2022 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

3. Heard Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted there is no evidence to prove the allegations made against the petitioner as respondent No.2 was in leave since November, 2021. He further submitted that despite there being instructions to all the departments of the Organization to purchase any material to prevent the spread of COVID-19, respondent No.2 falsely made allegation that due to inadequate supply of PPE Kits and gloves she was infected with COVID, only to implicate the petitioner. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner is constantly harassing respondent No.2 and previously also respondent No.2 given complaint to Ministry with regard to the conduct of the petitioner. As such, the alleged offences against the petitioner requires trial. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offence as alleged by the Police.

7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori, (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:

“The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material.”

8. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Kori (Supra), this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the