Accused sought quashment of proceedings for house-trespass and theft offences arising from a disputed re-conveyance of a purchased house. The court applied the Bhajanlal guidelines under Section 482 CrPC and held no grounds for quashing existed at this stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1604 OF 2019
Between:
...PETITIONER/A1, A2 & A3
AND
...Respondents/Complainant
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 call for records inCC.971/2017onthe file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool and quash the same.
■f
I.A. NO:.1 OF 2019
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 stay of all further proceedings including appearance of petitioners in CC. 971/2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusingtheMemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K RATHANGA PANI REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and ofSriShafathAhmed Khan , Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
The Court made the following: ORDER
[3333]
APHC010074272019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
I
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1604/2019
Between:
G.satyanarayana and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1.K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1 .PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2.SHAFATH AHMED KHAN
The Court made the following:
2
ORDER;
The instant criminal petition under Section 482 ofCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.,) has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking quashment of proceedings againstthem in C.C.No.971 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 461, 380 r/w 511 of Cr.P.C.
(i) Petitioners herein are the Accused Nos.1 to 3 and respondentNo.2 herein is the defacto-complainant. Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 purchased the house from the LWs-2 and 3 by way of a registered sale deed dated 14.03.2014. In the condition, it was stated that accused No.1 would re-register and hand over the housetoLWs-2 and 3, if they pay the purchase amount on or before13.06.2015. Further, the Petitioner No.1 also filed a criminal case in FIR. No.142/2015, dated 13.06.2015 for not delivering possessionofthe said house building to the Respondent No.2 and the same is numbered as C.C.No.1784 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Judical Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool.
II While the matter stood thus, LW-2 got issued a legalnoticedated 28.05.2015 to the petitioner No.1 asking him to receiveRs.2.00 crores and re-conveyance the said property. Later,on09.06.2015 LW-2 filed a^suit for enforcement of re-con^eyancedeedand for
3
cancellation of registered sale deed No.1629/2014, dated 14.03.2014 against the Petitioner No.1 in O.S.No.93 of 2015 on the file of VI Additional District Court, Kurnool.
Thereafter, Lws-2 and 3 filed a suit for permanent injunction against Petitioner No.1 on 11.06.2015 in O.S.No.277 of 2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. The counselforthePetitioner No.1 took time for filing counter on the ground thathehas filed caveat. While so, Lws-2 and 3 went to Bangalore for attending the treatment of their so. Taking the advantage of their absence, on 14.06.2015, petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 with the helpofAccused Nos.2 and 3 criminally trespassed into the house by breaking up the the lock. Thereafter, at the request of LW-2 and 3, their counsel LW-1, Mr. M. R. Krishna Advocate, at Kurnool lodged a police complaint against the Petitioner No.1 and an FIR No.146/2015 dated 17.06.2015 was registered charging under Sections 454, 461, 380 r/w 34 of IPC and the same is numbered as C.C.No.971 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to3 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them.
- Heard both the learned counsel and perused the entire material available on record.
\
4
- Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor wouldsubmitthat there are specific allegations against the petitioners.Thetruth,orotherwise, of the said allegations will be revealed during thecourseofthetrial.There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against thepetitioners, at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5
- Having heard both sides, now the point that would emerge for determination is:
Whether there are any Justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the petitioners/ Accused Nos.l to 3 in C.C.No.971 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool?
- A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court arenotlimitedoraffectedso 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.
- Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others^isconsidered
1 AIR 1992 SC 604
f' ■V
6
as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows;
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary powerunderArticle 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of theCodewhich we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends ofjustice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of caseswherein such power should be exercised.
7
3^
{emphasis supplied)
N. 'X
8
opinion that the criminal petition deserves to be dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
SDI- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To
5. Three CD Copies
vna
HIGH COURT
DATED:17/09/2024
ORDER
CRLP.No.1604 of 2019
oF
5 u 7 JAN 20?^ m
i£esPATCVA^
DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there are justifiable grounds to quash proceedings against accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.971 of 2017 for offences under Sections 454, 461, 380 IPC arising out of an alleged criminal trespass in
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and othersApplied¶9
AIR 1992 SC 604 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Gujarathi Satyanarayana
Shaik Mahaboob Basha
A.Naganna
The State of Andhra Pradesh
M.R.Krishna
V.SUJATHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
