1. This petition is filed under Section 528 of the of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C. No 14322 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 509, 384, 506, 354-A(CLA Act) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”). The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.6, 8 and 9 herein.
2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Muzaffer Ullah Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.
3.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint alleging that the accused had been demanding money from her since 2014. It is alleged that the accused sent letters and made demands ranging from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.1 crore, while threatening to lodge complaints against the institution and thereby damage its reputation. The complainant allegedly paid amounts of Rs.30 lakhs, Rs.10 lakhs, Rs.4 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs to some of the accused on account of such threats and intimidation.
3.2. It was further alleged that the accused claimed to have connections with senior I.A.S. and I.P.S. officers and other influential persons. They allegedly used abusive language and, acting in concert, visited the institution and threatened the students, women teachers and members of the management, besides obstructing the functioning of the institution. On the basis of the complaint, Crime No.297 of 2018 was registered. During the course of investigation, upon receiving information regarding a further demand for Rs.5 lakhs, the police allegedly arranged a trap on 28.09.2019, in which accused Nos.2 and 3 were apprehended while allegedly receiving the said amount from the complainant. The prosecution states that cash and other material objects were seized in connection with the said incident.
3.3. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the petitioners and the other accused, alleging that they had acted in furtherance of their common intention and in concert with one another to obtain money from the complainant by threatening and intimidating her. Accused Nos.1, 5 and 7 were shown as absconding and, therefore, were not charge-sheeted, with the prosecution proposing to file a separate charge sheet upon their arrest. Thus, the prosecution contends that a prima facie case is made out against the charge-sheeted accused, including the petitioners, for the offences alleged.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, contend that the prosecution case primarily concerns accused Nos.1 and 2 and certain other persons who allegedly claimed to represent an association and demanded money from respondent No.2 by threatening to lodge complaints against her educational institutions. It is submitted that, pursuant to such threats, certain amounts were allegedly paid to some of the accused in order to avoid complaints and enquiries.
4.2. The petitioners contend that they have been implicated solely on the basis of the alleged claims made by accused Nos.1 and 2 that they were associates of the petitioners. The petitioners specifically deny any such association and submit that there is no material establishing either their association with the said accused or their involvement in the alleged offences. It is further contended that, although the police filed a charge sheet against nine accused, there is no specific allegation, overt act or incriminating material connecting the petitioners, namely accused Nos.6, 8 and 9, with the alleged offences.
4.3. According to the petitioners, none of the witnesses examined during the investigation attributed any specific role to them. Nor, according to them, is there any material to show that they shared the alleged common intention, participated in the demands or threats, received any amount from the complainant, or derived any benefit from the amounts allegedly paid by respondent No.2. Relying upon K.M. Ravi v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 16 SCC 337, the petitioners submit that mere association with an accused, in the absence of material demonstrating knowledge, intention or participation, does not by itself constitute criminal liability. They therefore contend that continuation of the criminal proceedings against them, in the absence of prima facie material connecting them with the alleged offences, would amount to an abuse of the process of law and result in a miscarriage of justice. On these grounds, the petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings.
5.1. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the petition, contending that the allegations against the petitioners/accused Nos.6, 8 and 9 have to be considered in the context of the material collected during the investigation and the alleged concerted conduct of the accused. It is submitted that, after conducting a detailed investigation, the police filed the charge sheet and that the material on record discloses a prima facie case against the petitioners for the offences alleged.
5.2. The prosecution contends that the petitioners’ plea that they were implicated merely because accused Nos.1 and 2 claimed to be their associates involves disputed questions concerning the association between the accused, the material collected during investigation and the respective roles attributed to them, which cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of considering a petition for quashing. It is submitted that the prosecution case concerns an alleged concerted course of conduct involving threats to make complaints against the educational institutions, and that the alleged association and common intention of the accused are matters that require examination during trial.
5.3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the absence of a direct allegation that the petitioners personally received any money does not, by itself, absolve them of criminal liability where common intention and concerted conduct are alleged. According to the prosecution, the statements of the witnesses and other material collected during the investigation sufficiently connect the petitioners with the alleged offences at this stage.
5.4. With regard to the reliance placed by the petitioners on K.M. Ravi (supra), the prosecution submits that the said decision principally concerns the appreciation of evidence and individual criminal liability in the context of an unlawful assembly and does not directly relate to the offences involved in the present case. Accordingly, the prosecution seeks dismissal of the petition, contending that, in view of the charge sheet and the material collected during investigation disclosing a prima facie case against the petitioners, interference with the proceedings and quashing of the charge sheet at this stage would not be warranted.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the material available on record.
7. In this context, the principal question that arises for consideration is whether the charge sheet and the material collected during investigation disclose the commission of the alleged offences by the petitioners/accused Nos.6, 8 and 9 and, further, whether their prosecution can be sustained with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is required to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, primarily to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
8. At the stage of considering a petition for quashing, the Court ordinarily does not undertake an appreciation of evidence, assess the credibility of witnesses, or conduct a mini-trial. Nevertheless, where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence against a particular accused, or where the material placed on record fails to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, the Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to prevent continuation of proceedings. The principles governing the exercise of such jurisdiction have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and Niharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401.
9. In the present case, the principal allegations of the prosecution relate to repeated monetary demands, threats to lodge complaints against the educational institutions and thereby damage their reputation, intimidation of the complainant and the persons associated with the institution, and the alleged receipt of money by certain accused. The trap laid on 28.09.2018, the alleged seizure of Rs.5 lakhs and the test identification proceedings principally concern other accused. Likewise, the allegation of inappropriate conduct contained in the statement of the complainant is directed against a particular accused.
10. The mere existence of incriminating material against some of the accused cannot, by itself, constitute material against every other accused who has been charge-sheeted. Criminal liability is ordinarily individual in nature unless a statutory provision provides a basis for constructive or joint liability. Section 34 of the IPC embodies a rule of joint liability and is attracted where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all. Although the law does not require that each accused must necessarily perform a separate overt act, there must nevertheless be material from which the sharing of a common intention and participation in the act done in furtherance thereof can reasonably be inferred.
11. Therefore, the mere absence of a specific overt act, by itself, may not invariably justify quashing of the proceedings. At the same time, mere association, acquaintance, or the alleged assertion by accused Nos.1 and 2 that they were associates of the petitioners/accused Nos.6, 8 and 9, in the absence of supporting material, cannot by itself establish either common intention or criminal participation. There must be some material connecting each of the petitioners with the alleged demands, threats, communications, receipt or facilitation of money, the trap transaction, or any other conduct forming part of the alleged criminal design.
12. The principle stated in K.M. Ravi (supra), namely, that criminal liability cannot be fastened upon an individual merely on the basis of his association with other accused in the absence of material establishing participation or culpability, is relevant to the issue arising in the present case. Though the said decision arose in the context of offences involving an unlawful assembly and is not direct authority concerning an offence under Section 384 of the IPC, the underlying principle of individual criminal liability remains relevant. The ingredients of the substantive offences alleged against an accused must likewise have an individual nexus with that accused.
13. Section 384 of the IPC, read with Section 383 thereof, requires the essential ingredients of extortion, including intentionally putting a person in fear of injury and thereby dishonestly inducing that person to deliver property or valuable security. Section 506 of the IPC requires the commission of criminal intimidation within the meaning of Section 503 thereof. Section 509 of the IPC requires a word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman, while Section 354-A of the IPC, if applicable, requires the commission of one of the statutorily specified forms of sexual harassment. Thus, allegations and material establishing the ingredients of these offences against one accused cannot automatically be attributed to another accused merely because both have been charge-sheeted in the same case.
14. The principle stated in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, that general and omnibus allegations, in the absence of specific material connecting an accused with the alleged offences, may justify interference in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., also assumes relevance, notwithstanding that the said decision arose in a different factual context.
15. In the present case, upon examination of the charge sheet and the accompanying material, including the statements of L.Ws.1 to 9, this Court finds that none of the said witnesses has attributed any specific act or circumstance connecting the petitioners/accused Nos.6, 8 and 9 with the alleged offences. There is also no independent documentary, electronic, call-detail, financial, identification or other material connecting the petitioners with the alleged monetary demands, threats, communications, trap transaction or receipt of money. In the absence of such material, the necessary factual foundation for invoking Section 34 of the IPC against the petitioners is not established. The prosecution of the petitioners, therefore, rests substantially upon their alleged association with accused Nos.1 and 2. Such association, without supporting material demonstrating knowledge, participation, common intention or any other form of culpable involvement in the alleged criminal acts, cannot by itself give rise to criminal liability. The material placed before the Court does not disclose a sufficient nexus between the petitioners and the acts constituting the alleged offences so as to sustain their prosecution at this stage.
16. In these circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.6, 8 and 9, in the absence of prima facie material connecting them with the alleged offences or establishing the factual foundation necessary to invoke Section 34 of the IPC, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.
17. It is made clear that the above finding is confined strictly to the petitioners/accused Nos.6, 8 and 9 and is based upon the material presently available against them. The finding shall not prejudice or otherwise affect the prosecution case against the remaining accused, whose liability is required to be considered independently on the basis of the material available against each of them.
18. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.6, 8 and 9 in C.C. No 14322 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
