Allowed

P.M.Krishna v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Dec 2024CRLP/1148/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contractor accused No.1 in an abduction case arising from a civil dispute over a building sought quashing of proceedings where the complaint named no accused and his inclusion rested only on co-accused confession statements. Finding allegations general and omnibus with no direct evidence, the court quashed C.C.No.320/2017 and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.320 of 2017 in FIR No.173 of 2014 against the petitioner quashed; miscellaneous petitions closed.

P.M.Krishna Vs State of Ap — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶7

CRIMINALPETITION NO: 1148 OF 2019

¶8

Between:

¶9

Pasupuleti Murali Krishna, S/o P. Nageswara Rao, aged 44 years. Flat.No.101, Manish residency, Madinagudam, Miyapur, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED N0.1

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by SHO, Bhimavaram - II Town Ps West Godavari District through Public Prosecutor, High court of AP Amaravathi

¶13

K.anjaneyaraju, S/o Ramaraju, aged 42 years, R/o Near Varma Hospital, Suryanarayanapuram, Bhimavarma town, W.G.Dist.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant a stay of all further proceedings including personal appearance of the petitioner in CC.No.320/2017 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

¶16

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition -.f* the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including personal appearance of the petitioner in Cc. 320/2017 on the file of 2nd Additional Judicial First class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, W.G. District pending the disposal of the above criminal petition.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N ASHWANI KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

APHC010052512019

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶22

[3333]

¶23

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶24

TUESDAY .THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER

¶25

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶28

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1148/2019

¶29

Between:

¶30

P.m,Krishna ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶31

AND

¶32

State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT{S)

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶34

1.N ASHWANI KUMAR

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶36

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶37

The Court made the following:

^ ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.320^{of2017onthefileof} the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District in FIR No.173 of 2014 of the Bhimavaram II Town Police Station, West Godavari District, for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 458,506, 120-B R/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. The petitioner herein is accused No.1 and the respondent^No.2 is the de-facto complainant. The respondent No.2 had lodged a report dated 05.10.2014, of the Bhimavaram II Town Police Station, West^{GodavariDistrict} alleging that he is the tenant of the house owned by^{onePenumatsaSwati} which is located in Varma Super-Speciality Hospital Street and one Sri Penumatsa Seetharama Raju and his wife Smt. Rama Sitha are residing in a house which is adjacent to the house of the de-facto complainant. While the matter being so, the petitioner herein had constructed a residential building on the northern side of the house of Sri Penumatsa Seetharama Raju, which resulted in disputes between the petitioner and Sri^{PenumatsaSeetharama} Raju. While, the said disputes were pending before the jurisdictional Courts, some third parties from Kadapa had purchased the residential building constructed by the petitioner and threatened Sri Penumatsa Seetharama Raju to withdraw the cases initiated by him against petitioner. It is further alleged in the said complaint that on 05.10.2014, around six (06) persons came and abducted the said Sri Penumatsa Seetharama Raju and^{hiswifeSmt.Rama} Sitha. Alleging the said incident, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint dated 05.10.2014, without indicating the names of any^accused.

¶42

The main grievance of the petitioner is that he is resident of Hyderabad and is working as a contractor. While so, he sold the subject building vide Agreement of Sale dated 30.12.2013 and thereafter, the petitioner had not visited the premises of the said building. It is further stated that, the petitioner is not aware of abduction of Sri Penumatsa Seetharama Raju and his wife. But, however, basing on the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant, an

¶43

FIR was registered on 05.10.2014 under Sections 365, 458 and 506 of IPC, against the petitioner. In the said complaint, except stating that the petitioner and Sri Penumatsa Seetharama Raju are having disputes with regard to the residential house constructed by the petitioner, there is no allegation or averment as against the petitioner, proving him as^theaccused. 4. Thereafter, by contending the charges leveled under Sections 458 and 506 IPC, the petitioner had filed CrI.P.No.14084 of 2014, before this Court seeking anticipatory bail, wherein, this Court vide its order dated 25.11.2014, was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed Crl.P.No.13908 of 2014, challenging^theFIRNo.173 of 2013 of the Bhimavaram II Town Police Station, West Godavari District, but, in which, subsequent to the filing of charge sheet vide C.C.No.538 of 2015 and after taking the same into cognizance by the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, the aforesaid Criminal Petition was dismissed as infructuous. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another CrI.P.No.6140 of 2016 seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.538 of 2015, wherein, this Court vide its order dated 25.04.2016, was pleased to dispense with the presence of the petitioner. Subsequently, as there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner before the trial Court, Non-Bailable Warrant was issued to the petitioner on 20.02.2017 and the C.C.No.538 of 2015 was re-numbered as C.C.No.320 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. Therefore, the charge sheet in C.C.No.320 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District in FIR No.173 of 2014 of the Bhimavaram II Town Police Station, West Godavari District, filed for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 458,506, 120-B R/w Section 34 of IPC is being challenged in the present petition. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating contentions raised in the petition has further contended that in the year 2007 itself Sri Penumatsa Seetharama Raju (L.W.2) has filed W.P.No.6560 of 2007 against the Bhimavaram Municipality^{andaswellasthe} petitioner herein alleging that the petitioner had made illegal construction in

¶44

situated in R.S.No.70/1 and 71 of 35^'' Ward, the property Bhimavaram Municipality, wherein this Court vide its ^ Suryanarayanapuram as devoid of merit. Further, * order dated 25.01.2024 had dismissed the same is the resident of Hyderabad and is working as a the petitioner/Accused No.1 between the petitioner and Sri Penumatsa contractor and the dispute in Seetharama Raju is civil in nature and moreover, except^{statingthatthe} and Sri Penumatsa Seetharama Raju are having disputes with petitioner residential house constructed by the petitioner, there are no regard to the averments as against the petitioner in the complaint dated allegations or accused. Further, the and hence, the 05.10.2014, proving him as the liable to be quashed against the petitioner. proceedings are 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are allegations^{asagainstthepetitioner} of law indicated in the charge in the complaint. He submits that the provisions sheet may be looked into by the Court to come to a^{justconclusionwithregard} to the culpability of the petitioner. As such, this^petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶45

12.03.2019, this court has 7. When the petition came up for hearing on passed the following order.

¶46

of all further proceedings in C.C.No.320 of 2017 ...Meanwhile there shall be stay on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram,^West Godavari District, till 02.04.2019, insofar as petitioner-A.1 is concerned. Proceedings in respect of other accused shall go on.

¶47

made by the learned counsel 8. Having heard the submissions representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record the point that arises for consideration is as follows; Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.320 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, West liable to be quashed by exercising Jurisdiction Godavari District, are under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The present peti^oj^

¶48

Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice.

¶49

Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows:

¶50

In “R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab 1.. the Apex Court laid down the following principles:

¶51

“(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice;

¶52

(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction;

¶53

(Hi) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do^{notconstitutethe} offence alleged; and

¶54

(Iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged^{butthereiseither} no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. ”

¶55

AIR 1960 SC 866

¶56

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the^High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse^{oftheprocessofCourt.} In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of^{theinherentpowertoquash} the proceedings is called for only in cases where the^{complaintdoesnot} disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or^{oppressive.Iftheallegations} set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence^{ofwhichcognizanceis} taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court^{toquashthesamein} under Section 482. It is not, however. exercise of the inherent powers necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis^{ofthecase,beforethe} trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction^{ornot.Thecomplaint} has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration^{oftheallegations,} in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant^{thatingredientsofthe} offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In^{thateventtherewouldbeno} justification for interference by the High Court as^{heldbytheApexCourtin} “Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar^ "

¶57

Keeping in view the above principles, I would like^{toexaminethecase} on hand.

¶58

Admittedly, a charge sheet vide C.C.No.320 of 2017^{wasfiledagainst} the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections^{365,458,506,120-B} R/w Section 34 of IPC. For better appreciation the aforesaid sections are extracted hereunder;

¶59

Section 365 ■ IPC-Kidnapping or abducting with intent^secretiyand wrongfuliy to confine person:

¶60

Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to^{causethatpersonto} be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished^{withimprisonmentof} either description for a term which may extend to seven^{years,andshallalsobe} liable to fine.

¶61

Section 458 iPC- Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking^bynightafter preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint:

¶62

Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or^{house-breakingby} night, having made preparation for causing hurt to^{anypersonorforassaulting} ^ AIR 1990 SC 494

¶63

any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person In fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶64

Section 506 IPC-Punishment for criminal intimidation:

¶65

Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprison-ment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

¶66

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—^And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment^{forlife,orwith} imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with^{fine,orwithboth.}

¶67

Section 120B-Punishment of criminal conspiracy:

¶68

(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment^for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision^{ismadeinthisCode} for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished^{inthesamemannerasif} he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid^{shallbepunishedwith} imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding^{sixmonths,orwith} fine or with both.

¶69

On a perusal of the complaint dated 05.10.2014, it^{canbeseenthat} except stating that there are disputes in between the petitioner and Sri Penumatsu Seetharama Raju, which are civil in nature i.e., with regard to the residential house constructed by the petitioner, there^{isnootheravermentor} allegation to array the petitioner as the accused in^thealleged crime and^inthe said complaint also, the de-facto complainant had not^{indicatedthenamesof} any accused. Moreover, the name of the petitioner was^notmentioned in the initial remand report dated 12.10.2014, but, thereafter, basing on the confession statement made by the accused Nos.2 to 11,^thename of the petitioner was included in the remand report dated^13.10.2014.

¶70

On a perusal of the charge sheet vide C.C.No.320 of^{2017,onthefileof} the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,^{Bhimavaram,WestGodavari} District, it can be seen that the de-facto complainant^ is none other than the

¶71

neighbor of the victims, who has filed the complaint^{dated05.10.2014as} against the petitioner as accused No.1 and other accused. It is also a fact that the de-facto complainant is not the direct witness^{totheallegedoffencethat} was happened on 05.10.2014 and further it can be seen^{thatonlytheaccused} Nos.2 to 11 were present at the scene of offence. Basing^{ontheconfessional} statement given by the accused Nos.2 to 11, that as^{pertheinstructionsofthe} accused No.1 only the accused Nos.2 and 3 had forced Sri Penumatsa Seetharama Raju (L.W.2) and Smt. Rama Sitha (L.W.3),^tosignonsome written papers for withdrawal of the case filed by^{theL.W.2,thepolicehad} arrayed the petitioner as accused No.1, which cannot be accepted. Furthermore, except the hearsay evidence, there is^{nodirectevidenceandas} well as specific allegation as against the petitioner^{toprovethathewas} involved in the said offence. 14. Admittedly, it is also a fact in the initial remand report dated 12.10.2014, the name of the petitioner is not shown^{andnoallegationwas} made against the petitioner. But, however, basing on the confession statement made by the accused Nos.2 to 11 in the remand^reportdated 13.10.2014, stating that they have committed the offence^{attheinstructionsof} the petitioner, the name of the petitioner was included^{asaccusedNo.1} in the charge sheet. It can also be seen that the disputes^{inbetweenthepetitioner} and Sri Penumatsu Seetharama Raju (L.W.2) are purely^{civilinnature,which} had aroused with regard to the residential building constructed by the petitioner in the northern side of the victims’ house^{andassuchthereisno} evidence or document to prove that the petitioner had^{involvedinthealleged} crime. Furthermore, with regard to the civil dispute^{betweenthepetitionerand} Sri Penumatsu Seetharama Raju (L.W.2), the L.W.2, had^{filedW.P.No.6560of} 2007, wherein this Court, after hearing both sides^{andperusingthematerial} available on record, dismissed the aforesaid writ petition^{on25.01.2024.}

¶72

The Flon’ble Apex Court, time and again has recorded^{thatthereisan} impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement^{inthecivildispute.In} the case of G. SagarSuri and Another V. State of U.P.^{andothers,the}

¶73

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that any effort to settle^{civildisputesandclaims,} which do not involve any criminal offence, by pressure^through criminal prosecution, should be deprecated and discouraged. Even in the present case, it appears that the 2 nd respondent has filed a complaint in order to settle the civil disputes raised by the petitioner herein and to pressurize the petitioner herein. As continuance of criminal proceedings^{againstthepetitioner} of the court and as the quashing of may amount to the abuse of the process the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice^andfurtheras there is no evidence or document to prove that the^{petitionerhadinvolvedin} the alleged offence, this Court is of the opinion that^{theallegationsthatare} leveled against the petitioner are general and omnibus^{innatureandfeels} it appropriate to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.320^{of2017onthefileofthe} 11 Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District in FIR No.173 of 2014 of the Bhimavaram II Town Police^Station,West Godavari District. 16. In view of the same, the proceedings in C.C.No.320 of 2017^onthefile of the 11 Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District in FIR No.173 of 2014 of the Bhimavaram 11 Town Police Station, West Godavari District, pending against the petitioner are^hereby quashed.

¶74

-faflb

¶75

Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this petition shall stand

¶76

closed. P U V BHASKAR RAO assistant registrar //true copy// SECTION OFFICER

¶77

To,

¶78

Bhimavaram, West

¶79

Class Magistrate

¶80

Additional Judicial First

¶81

1. The 11 Godavari District.

¶82

, Advocate [OPUCj

¶83

Sri N Ashwani Kumar

¶84

1. One CC to Pradesh. [OUT]

¶85

High Court of Andhra

¶86

Public Prosecutor,

¶87

1. Two CCs to

¶88

Three CD Copies

Pmg \l^

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/12/2024

ORDER

CRLP.No.1148 Of 2019

AND,i^
* 0 6 MAR 20?5 o\n
C9,
^ . Current beciion . ^

¶95

ALLOWING THE CRLP

P.M.Krishna v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M.Krishna v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagarapu Chinna Appala Naidu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Gade Mallikarjuna Reddy Vs State of Ap

Gollapalti Ananda Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Eswara Rao Vs State of Ap

L.Apparao Vs State of Ap

Achutuni Bhanumurthy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh