Bombay High Court: By way of separate applications under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), applicants were seeking quashment of the crime, the charge-sheet and the criminal case registered with Dharmabad Police Station District Nanded on 20-7-2010 for offences punishable under Sections 353, 324, 332, 336, 337, 504, 506 read with Section 109 and Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).
The Division Bench of Mangesh S. Patil* and Shailesh P. Brahme, JJ., considered the fact the FIR was lodged promptly and even the injured police personnel were medically examined immediately after occurrence of the incident, and opined that there was enough material revealing complicity of applicants in commission of crime with which they had been charged and it would not be appropriate to quash the crime and the criminal case under Section 482 of CrPC. The Court rejected the present applications and held that there was no illegality in registration of the crime against applicants, its investigation by the police and the cognizance taken by the Magistrate.
Background
The applicants, Nara Chandrababu Naidu, and Nakka Ananda Babu, who are Former Chief Minister and Peoples Representatives, along with their associates, totaling 66 persons were arrested in connection with a crime registered on 17-7-2010 for offences punishable under Sections 143 and 188 of the IPC and 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Thereafter, they were produced before the Magistrate concerned at Dharmabad and were remanded to magisterial custody till 19-7-2010. The Collector, Nanded by passing appropriate order notified the Industrial Training Institute, Dharmabad (‘ITI Dharmabad’) and the Government Rest House, Dharmabad as temporary prisons for housing applicants. The FIR further alleged that since magisterial custody was to end on 19-7-2010 in a special seating in the ITI Dharmabad itself, the Magistrate again remanded them to magisterial custody till 26-7-2010.
As per the instructions of the DIG Prisons, Maharashtra and in view of the security arrangements, the jailer was directed to shift all the prisoners including the applicants to the Central Jail Aurangabad. The applicants and other accused refused to cooperate and thereafter in an arrogant manner hurled abuses in Telugu and English. When the jailer and police constables told them that the buses were ready and requested them to board, applicant refused to do so and declared that if they were forced to board the buses there would be an unrest and conflict between Maharashtra and Telangana and flatly denied being taken to Aurangabad. He also instigated the other prisoners and all of them in a concerted manner created terrorizing atmosphere, started hurling abuses in Telugu and English and used criminal force and even assaulted the police constables. Thereafter, the Jailor lodged the report with Dharmabad Police Station and the crime was registered on 20-7-2010.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that FIR expressly alleged that applicant had instigated fellow prisoners and even threatened war between the two states, i.e., Maharashtra and Telangana, and the incident had taken place in the manner which was alleged. The Court also noted that though the injuries were simple, some of the police personnel had sustained multiple injuries.
The Court opined that when it was a matter of number of prisoners carrying out assault on the police personnel, who were there to escort them to the Aurangabad Central Prison in buses, with a view to deter them from discharging their duty and in the process had caused simple hurt and when applicants were alleged to have instigated the fellow prisoners, it was clear that the offence was committed by sharing a common intention and applicants could even be charged for abetment.
The Court considered the fact the FIR was lodged promptly and even the injured police personnel were medically examined immediately after occurrence of the incident, and opined that there was enough material revealing complicity of applicants in commission of crime with which they had been charged and it would not be appropriate to quash the crime and the criminal case under Section 482 of CrPC.
The Court observed that the offence registered in FIR and crime against these applicants were only the offences under the IPC and conspicuous absence of any mention or reference to any prison offence either in FIR or in the charge-sheet was eloquent enough to discard counsel for applicant’s submission that the allegations in FIR and the statements of witnesses would make out the acts committed by applicants to be prison offences enlisted in Section 45 of the Prisons Act, 1894 (‘the Act’) and by virtue of Section 48 of the Act, it was only the Superintendent of Prison who had the power to impose punishments. The Court opined that the impugned crime and the charge-sheet merely seek to attract the provisions of the IPC.
The Court opined that the provisions of the Act do not impliedly debar police in registering a cognizable offence and undertaking investigation or would prevent a Magistrate from taking cognizance of the offences committed within the premises of prison which did not constitute prison offences as defined under Section 45 of the Act. The Court also opined that Section 59(4) of the Act demonstrated that a State Government could declare certain offences under the IPC which were also prison offences to be dealt with as prison offences. It could not be read to convey a meaning that the offences committed within the prison which were clearly offences under the IPC be converted or tried as prison offences irrespective of the fact that the ingredients for constituting the prison offences and that of the offences under IPC were merely overlapping to some extent. It would have to be read to mean that if an act which was an offence under the IPC was also a prison offence and the ingredients of both were exactly same, then the State Government under this enabling provision could lay down the rules for dealing with such acts committed within a prison.
The Court further opined that the conspicuous absence of any reference to Section 52 of the Act in Rule 25 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Punishments) Rules, 1963, was indicative of legislature’s intention to see to it that if the offences enlisted therein were committed by a prisoner within the precincts of a prison, the only way to deal with them should be prosecution under the IPC. Thus, the Court rejected the submission of applicant’s counsel that the jailer could not have lodged FIR, and the police could not have registered and investigated it.
The Court rejected the present applications and held that there was no illegality in registration of the crime against applicants, its investigation by the police and the cognizance taken by the Magistrate.
[Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1311, decided on 10-5-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Mangesh S. Patil
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant: Sidharth Luthra, Senior Advocate a/w Aayush Kaushik i/b Satyajit S. Bora, a/w Pratibha Choudhari
For the Respondents: V.K. Kotecha, APP
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
