APHC010280682020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3396]

FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5261 OF 2019 AND 5864 OF 2020

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5261 OF 2019

Between:

Yedla Satheesh ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

Post Commander and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5864 OF 2020

Between:

Yedla Satish ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

N Ramaiah and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

N.RAVI PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. Y.V.ANIL KUMAR

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following:

2

COMMON ORDER :

Criminal Petition No.5261 of 2019 has been filed under Section 482 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

1

, by the Petitioner/Accused seeking to

quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.428 of 2018 on the file of the

Court of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada for the

offences punishable under Sections 137, 145 (b) and 146 of the Railways

Act

2

.

Criminal Petition No.5864 of 2020 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has

been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings

against him in C.C.No.219 of 2019 on the file of the Court of II Metropolitan

Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada for the offences punishable under

Sections 354, 353, 509, 186 and 419 of Indian Penal Code,1860.

3

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:

a. On 20.02.2018 during night time, Petitioner/Accused boarded

Machilipatnam-Visakhapatnam Passenger Train No.57229, and approached

L.W.2- N.Krishna Sagar, who was discharging his officer duty as Travelling

Ticket Examiner(TTE) for S.1 and S.2 coaches, introduced himself as if he

was a Railway Officer and asked him to provide a berth. The T.T.E allotted

berth No.39 in S.1 coach to the Petitioner upto Bhimavaram.

b. At about 2.00 to 2.30 hours on 21.02.2018, the Petitioner/ Accused

intentionally approached L.W.3 – Chodisetty Anusha, who was travelling in the

1

for short ‘Cr.P.C’

2

for short ‘the Act’

3

for short ‘IPC’

3

same coach in berth No.38 and misbehaved with her by touching her legs and

hands and also abusing her in filthy language. Though said Anusha got

changed to berth No.33 by requesting the T.T.E., Petitioner/Accused

continued his misbehavior, went to berth No.33, touched and abused her in

filthy language and thereby outraged her modesty.

c. The Petitioner also misbehaved with other lady passengers who

boarded at Bhimavaram Town Railway Station and abused them in

unparliamentary language. Petitioner also threatened them with dire

consequences when they tried to calm him down.

d. When the T.T.E warned the Petitioner and tried to send him from that

coach, he also threatened the T.T.E who is a public servant on duty that he

would see his end and remove him from service by complaining to D.R.M.,

Vijayawada.

e. Having received information about the said incident, L.W.1 –

N.Ramayya, the-then Inspector of RPF, Rajahmundry got the

Petitioner/Accused detrained at Rajahmundry Railway Station and after

investigation, lodged a report against the Petitioner/Accused, based on which

a case in Crime No.13 of 2018 was registered by the SHO, Bhimavaram

Railway Police Station against the Accused for the offences under Sections

354, 353, 506 IPC and another Crime No.506 of 2018 was registered by the

Post Commander/RPF/Rajahmundry for the offences under Sections 137,

145(b) and 146 of the Act.

4

f. After due investigation, charge sheets have been filed against the

Petitioner/Accused in the above two crimes which were numbered as

C.C.No.219 of 2019 on the file of the Court of II Metropolitan Magistrate for

Railways, Vijayawada and C.C.No.428 of 2018 on the file of the Court of VII

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada.

Grounds Sought for Quashment

3. Aggrieved by the registration of said cases, the Petitioner/ Accused filed

the present petitions seeking quashment of the said cases on the following

grounds:

a. Petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence much less the

alleged offences.

b. Petitioner worked as Assistant Operations Manager (Coaching) at

Vijayawada and due to pressure of work, he became mentally imbalanced.

Petitioner was treated at Secunderabad Railway Hospital for his mental

illness.

c. On the date of alleged incident, the Petitioner was not aware as to what

had happened and when he was produced before the Court, the learned

Magistrate refused to remand him for the reason that the Petitioner was

mentally imbalanced.

d. Mere touching of feet and hands of the lady passengers would not

constitute the offence under Section 354 IPC. To attract the offence under

Section 353 IPC, there must be assault or use of criminal force to deter a

public servant and the same is absent in the present case.

5

e. Petitioner may be exempted from the above offences, because such

incident had happened beyond the control of the Petitioner as he was mentally

insane.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri

Y.V.Anil Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel for Respondent No.1

and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

representing the State/Respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner was

appointed as Assistant Operation Manager in Railway Department in the year

2015 and he underwent training for two years. After training the Petitioner

was posted at Krishnapatnam Port and worked there for nine months. Later,

he was transferred to Vijayawada. He had to spend sleepless nights in

discharging his duties, which resulted in mental imbalance. Learned counsel

further submits that the Petitioner was treated at Secunderabad Railway

Hospital for his mental illness prior to the alleged incident and that Petitioner

was not aware as to what had happened and even whether he travelled in that

train at the time of the alleged incident. Learned counsel would further submit

that, at the time of remand, learned Magistrate refused to take him into

remand because he was mentally imbalanced. Thereafter, his parents took

him to Visakhapatnam for treatment.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that it is alleged

against the Petitioner that he touched the feet and hands of a lady passenger

6

which itself does not constitute the offence under Section 354 IPC, in the

absence of any intention to outrage her modesty. Coming to the offence

under Section 353 IPC, mere using abusive language on a public servant is

not sufficient unless it is coupled with the use of criminal force to deter him

from discharging his duties. In the present case, it is alleged that T.T.E was

threatened that the Petitioner would make a complaint against him to the

D.R.M. Intention to commit such offence does not arise because the

Petitioner was not mentally fit.Therefore, continuation of proceedings against

the Petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that for the very same

incident, the RPF Commander filed a complaint in Crime No.506 of 2018 for

the offences punishable under Sections 137, 145(b) and 146 of the Act which

was taken cognizance as C.C.No.428 of 2018 i.e., for travelling in a railway

coach without proper pass or ticket and for obstructing the TTE from

discharging his duties. Learned counsel further submits that for the self-same

incident, Railway Police, Bhimavaram and Rajahmundry have registered two

crimes and two charge sheets have also been filed. Learned counsel submits

that the Petitioner reported to duty after getting the fitness on 02.04.2018.

8. Learned Central Government Counsel and the Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor, in unison, would submit that the Petitioner misbehaved with a lady

passenger and the railway TTE, who travelled in S-1 coach. It is also

contended that the documents filed before the Court stating that the Petitioner

suffered from Mania with Psychosis and the other record to show that he was

7

unable to understand as to what had happened, require a detailed enquiry.

Hence, it is not a fit case for quashment. It is further submitted that the Court

may pass appropriate orders by giving liberty to the Petitioner to submit his

medical record before the trial Courts to take an appropriate decision.

Learned Central Government Counsel would further submit that the Petitioner

got promotion after the incident.

Point for Determination

9. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both

the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of

proceedings against the Petitioner/ Accused in the above

cases?

Determination by the Court

10. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages

that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to

make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the

Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to

secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not

functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its

powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and

circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling

reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against

sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.

8

11. The case against the Petitioner is that, on the night of 20.02.2018, the

Petitioner travelled in Machilipatnam–Visakhapatnam Passenger Train

No.57229 without having pass or ticket, and he misbehaved with a lady

passenger by touching her hands and legs, abused her in filthy language and

thereby outraged her modesty and also obstructed the TTE from discharging

his duties and also abused and threatened him to complain to the DRM.

12. For better understanding, it is apposite to extract Sections 137, 145(b)

and 146 of Railways Act, which read as under:

―137. Fraudulently traveling or attempting to travel without proper

pass or ticket. – (1) If any person, with intend to defraud a railway

administration, -

(a) enter or remains in any carriage on a railway or travels in a train

in contravention of Sec.55, or

(b) uses or attempts to use a single pass or a single ticket which has

already been used on a previous journey, or in the case of a return ticket, a

half thereof which has already been so used, he shall be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which

may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both; Provided that in the

absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned

in the judgment of the court, such punishment shall not be less than a fine

of five hundred rupees.

(2) The person referred to in sub-section (1) shall also be liable to

pay the excess charge mentioned in sub-section (3) in addition o the

ordinary single fare for the distance which he has traveled, or where there

is any doubt as to the station from which the train originally started, or if the

tickets of passengers traveling in the train have been examined since the

original starting of the train, the ordinary single fare from the place where

the tickets were so examined or , in case of their having been examined

more than once, were last examined.

(3) The excess charge referred to in sub-section (2) shall be a sum

equal to the ordinary single fare referred to in that sub-section or fifty

rupees, whichever is more.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sec. 65 of the Indian

Penal code, (45 of 1860) the court convicting an offender may direct that

the person in default of payment of any fine inflicted by the court shall suffer

imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months.

145. Drunkenness or nuisance:- If any person in any railway

carriage or upon any part of a railway:-

(a) is in a state of intoxication; or

(b) commits any nuisance or act of indecency or uses abusive or

obscene language;

9

(c) willfully or without excuse interferes with any amenity provided

by the railway administration so as to affect the comfortable travel of any

passenger,

he may be removed from the railway by any railway servant and shall, in

addition to the forfeiture of his pass or ticket, be punishable with

imprisonment which may extend to six months and with fine which may

extend to five hundred rupees:

Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the

contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, such punishment

shall not be less than:- (a) a fine of one hundred rupees in the case of

conviction for the first offence; and (b) imprisonment of one month and a

fine of two hundred and fifty rupees, in the case of conviction for second or

subsequent offence.

146. Obstructing railway servant in his duties:- If any person willfully

obstructs or prevents any railway servant in the discharge of his duties, he

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six

months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with

both.‖

13. For better understanding, it is apposite to extract Sections 353,

354, and 506 IPC, which were registered in C.C.No.219 of 2019 which read as

under:

―353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge

of his duty.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being

a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with

intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such

public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done

by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which

may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her

modesty.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman,

intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage

her modesty, 1[shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for

a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five

years, and shall also be liable to fine].

503. Criminal intimidation.—Whoever threatens another with any injury to

his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one

in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person,

or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or

to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the

means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal

intimidation.

506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits the

offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of

either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or

with both.‖

10

14. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the

Petitioner was suffering from Mania with Psychosis at the relevant time and he

was unable to understand as to what had happened at that time. Further,

when the Petitioner was produced for remand, the learned Magistrate refused

to grant remand as the Petitioner was suffering from mental illness and copies

of his medical record is filed.

15. Mere filing of a photocopy of the medical record before this Court, is not

sufficient to satisfy this Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482

Cr.P.C. This Court cannot take any view as to the truth or otherwise of the

contentions raised by the Petitioner that he was mentally imbalanced at the

time of the alleged incident and that he does not even know whether he

traveled in that train at the relevant point of time. On the other hand, it is

alleged that the Petitioner was de-trained at Rajahmundry Railway station.

16. Further, perusal of the ingredients of Sections of Law and the contents

of the charge sheets in both the cases would clearly show that there are

specific allegations levelled against the Petitioner. The contentions of the

learned counsel for the Petitioner with regard to the mental health of the

Petitioner is the factual aspect to be decided during trial. However, there is

some force in the argument that, for the self-same incident, second FIR is not

maintainable since it is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. Such being the case,

whatever evidence is collected relating to second FIR should be added to the

case relating to first FIR.

11

17. Coming to the facts of the present case, two crimes, which have been

registered relating to the alleged incident, would disclose distinct offences.

Railway Protection Force is not authorized to register the cases under Indian

Penal Code. At the same time, GRP are not authorized to register and

investigate the cases relating to the offences under Railways Act. Allegations

made in the above two cases prima facie disclose separate and distinct

offences, as such, the second FIR is not hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C.

18. This Court does not find any force in the contention of the Petitioner that

he was mentally imbalanced and he was not in a position to understand the

consequences of his acts. Unless it is decided about the mental status of the

Petitioner, this Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482

Cr.P.C. Further, for the very same incident, a case in Crime No.13 of 2018 on

the file of Bhimavaram Railway Police Station was registered for the offences

under Sections 354, 353, 506 IPC and another Crime No.506 of 2018 was

also registered by the Post Commander/ RPF/Rajahmundry for the offences

under Sections 137, 145 (b) and 146 of the Act and charge sheets have also

been filed against the Accused.

19. For the self-same incident, Railway Police, Bhimavaram and

Rajahmundry have registered two crimes and after due investigation two

separate charge sheets have been filed and the same are pending before the

Railway Courts. Since both the cases are arising out of the same incident and

one is registered for IPC offences and the other is for the offences under

Railways Act, it is desirable to conduct simultaneous trial in both the cases.

12

However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed its view by

touching the merits of the case. The Petitioner is at liberty to place such

material before the trial Court to decide the truth or otherwise of the

contentions raised by the Petitioner.

20. Therefore, this Court concludes that the allegations made against the

Petitioner, in the above two cases, are sufficient enough for the trial to be

taken up and thereby, and the proceedings against the Petitioner in both the

cases are not advisable to be quashed and hence, the petitions deserves to

be dismissal.

21. Without prejudice to the defences available, the Criminal Petition

Nos.5261 of 2019 and 5864 of 2020 are dismissed. Learned II Additional

Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada is directed to conduct

simultaneous trial in C.C.No.428 of 2018 and C.C.No.219 of 2019 and dispose

of the same as expeditiously as possible.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________________________

JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Date:10.05.2024

Dinesh

13

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5261 OF 2019 AND

5864 OF 2020

Dt.10.05.2024

Dinesh

14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5261 OF 2019 AND 5864 OF 2020

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5261 OF 2019

Between:

YEDLA SATHEESH, S/O. GANGA RAJU, STM/COACHING/SPECIAL/HQS,

RAIL NILYAM, SECUNDERABAD R/O. FLAT NO 623/4, RAIL NILAYAM

COLONY, BESIDE RAIL NILAYAM, SECUNDERABAD 500071

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

1. POST COMMANDER, RPF/RAJAHMUNDRY

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PR ADESH AT AMARAVATHI.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5864 OF 2020

Between:

YEDLA SATISH, S/O. GANGA RAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC

RAILWAY EMPLOYEE R/O. H. NO. 623/4, OFFICERS BANGLAW, RAIL

NILAYAM COLONY, SECUNDERABAD

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

1. N RAMAIAH, S/O. CHINA KONDAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC

RAILWAY EMPLOYEE, RAJAMUNDRY RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE,

RAJAMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI, A.P

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH S.H.O., P.S.,

BHIMAVARAM RLY P.S., REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH

COURT OF JUDICATURE AT AMARAVATI.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 10.05.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether Her Lordship wish to

see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

_____________________________________

JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

15

* THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

+ CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5261 OF 2019 AND 5864 OF 2020

% 10.05.2024

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5261 OF 2019

Between:

YEDLA SATHEESH, S/O. GANGA R AJU, STM/COACHING/SPECIAL/HQS,

RAIL NILYAM, SECUNDERABAD R/O. FLAT NO 623/4, RAIL NILAYAM

COLONY, BESIDE RAIL NILAYAM, SECUNDERABAD 500071

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

1. POST COMMANDER, RPF/RAJAHMUNDRY

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY IT S PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5864 OF 2020

Between:

YEDLA SATISH, S/O. GANGA RAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC

RAILWAY EMPLOYEE R/O. H. NO. 623/4, OFFICERS BANGLAW , RAIL

NILAYAM COLONY, SECUNDERABAD

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

1. N RAMAIAH, S/O. CHINA KONDAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC

RAILWAY EMPLOYEE, RAJAMUNDRY RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE,

RAJAMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI, A.P

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH S .H.O., P.S.,

BHIMAVARAM RLY P.S., REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH

COURT OF JUDICATURE AT AMARAVATI.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri N.Ravi Prasad

^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri Y.V.Anil Kumar for R.1

Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi,

Assistant Public Prosecutor for R.2

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred: ----

This Court made the following: