Allowed

Naalam Yellamandaiah, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Mar 2024CRLP/1632/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in a civil dispute dispute where essential medical evidence was absent, and continuing prosecution would amount to abuse of process rather than meeting ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the criminal proceedings (C.C. No. 273 of 2019) against the petitioner under Sections 323, 341 and 506 of IPC.

Naalam Yellamandaiah, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

WEDNESDAY THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1632 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Naalam Yellamandaiah, S/o Anantha Rarnaiah, Hindu, Aged about 60 years, resident of Door No. 11-18-6, Piduguralla Town, JCJC Pidiguralla, Guntur District

¶8

...Petitioner/Accused

¶9

AND

¶10

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor having his office in High Court Buildings, at Amaravathi.

¶11

The Station House Officer, Machavaram Police Station, Machavaram, Guntur District.

¶12

Naalam Narasimharao son of Anantharamaiah, Hindu, Aged about 61 years, Vysya, resident of Pillutia, Machavaram Mandal, Guntur District.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

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 to Quash the proceedings in C.C. No.273 of 2019 on the file of on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Piduguralla.

¶15

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Satyanarayana Nimmala, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1&2 and None appeared for \the Respondent No.3

¶17

The Court made the following:

-c

/ii*

APHC010124242020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶22

[3396]

¶23

WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶26

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1632/2020

¶27

Between:

¶28

1.NAALAM YELLAMANDAIAH,, SON OF ANANTHA RAMAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 1118-6, PIDUGURALLA TOWN, JCJC PDIGURALLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶29

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶30

AND

¶31

1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HAVING HIS OFFICE IN HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AT AMARAVATHI.

¶32

2.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MACHAVARAM POLICE STATION, MACHAVARAM. GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶33

3.NAALAM NARASIMHARAO, SON OF ANANTHARAMAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, VYSYA, RESIDENT OF PILLUTLA, MACHAVARAM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶34

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶36

SATYANARAYANA NIM MALA

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶38

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶39

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed, by the petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in C.C.No.273^of2019on the file of the Junior CiviUudge, Piduguralla, under Sections 323, 341 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, ISGO^.

¶42

The contents of the complaint in brief

¶43

a. Petitioner and the respondent No.2 are brothers. Respondent No.2 by trusting false promises of the petitioner, nearly 30 years back. started pesticides shop by taking R.C. in the name of the petitioner with the money of the complainant. When the business was in profit. petitioner cheated respondent No.2 by not giving him a single penny. since registration of the business stood in the name of the petitioner.

¶44

b. They kept the matter before elders Pathan John Pandu^and Shaik Jaani Basha at about two years back, wherein, the petitioner accepted to pay Rs.33 Lakhs in cash and 3 Acres of land to respondent No.2. But, the petitioner failed to pay the accepted amount of money and land to the respondent No.2, though he asked the petitioner several times.

¶45

c. While Respondent No.2 was going on his bike, the petitioner stopped him and beat him. In the meantime, one Mallavolu Syam and

¶46

1 in short ‘Cr.P.C’ Ln short‘I.P.C.’

¶47

¶48

Bommireddy Saidareddy who were passing by interfered and sent the petitioner away. Petitioner warned respondent No.2 against placing the matter before the elders and threatened that if he does it again, he will see his end.

¶49

d. Aggrieved thereby, Crime was registered by the Respondent No.2, which is now sought to be quashed. Hence Crl.P.

¶50

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

¶51

Heard Sri G.V.L.Ramanamurthy, learned counsel for Petitioner and Ms. D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction O.S. No.351 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gurajala, which was decreed in his favour and against the respondent No.2. He also stated that the Respondent No.2 is own brother of the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, injunction was granted to the petitioner against respondent No.2. It is stated that the Tahsildar, Machavaram made a criminal complaint against respondent No.2 i.e., Cr.No.55 of 2013 for adumbrating revenue record which was registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. The police filed charge sheet, numbered as C.C.No.l85 of 2015. As a

¶53

counterblast to the said case, present case has been lodged. All the witnesses in the present case in C.C.No.273 of 2019^arenoneother than the defendants and the witnesses in O.S.No.351 of 2011.

¶54

Learned Counsel submits further that the present^FIR is a counterblast to the civil suit and C.C.No.l85 of 2015 filed against the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant herein filed writ petition against the revenue department and the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. In support of their arguments, the petitioner filed a copy of judgment in O.S.No.351 of^2011and also W.P.No.331 of 2018 dated 12.09.2023.

¶55

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor fairly conceded^thatthe defendant and witnesses in O.S.No.351 of 2011 are the very same persons as prosecution witnesses in the present case^C.C.No.273of 2019 and submitted that the court may pass appropriate^orders.

¶56

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that only to wreck vengeance the dispute, which is purely civil in nature, has given a colour of criminal case by creating allegations with^the de facto complainant as obtained in the presence of two persons^whoareno other than the witnesses in the civil suit. No medical certificate has been filed in proof of any injury. It is only cooked up story to protect the petitioner into criminal prosecution, since the de facto

¶57

¶58

¶59

complainant has been facing a criminal trial in C.C.No.l85 of 2015 for adumbrating revenue record.

¶60

Point for Determination

¶61

Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows:

¶62

Whether the case against the petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.273 of 2019 on the ifle of Junior CiviLJudge, Piduguralla, is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P. C. ?

¶63

Determination by the Court

¶64

A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that^the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are^notlimitedor 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 ofjustice. 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^{realandsubstantial} justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of^{thecase.These} powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles^ofcriminal jurisprudence.

¶65

¶66

10; Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bbajanlal and^{others^is} considered as the guiding torch in the application^{ofSection482.At} paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out^asfollows;

¶67

‘^102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and^ofthe principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section⁴⁸² of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised^eitherto prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible^to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae^andto give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein^such power should be exercised.

¶68

(l) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at^their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prim^a facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶69

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(l) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶70

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the^FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support^ofthe

^ AIR 1992 SC 604

same do not disclose the commission of any offence^and make out a case against the accused.

¶75

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police^officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶76

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint^are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶77

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or^the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶78

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

¶79

1. We also give a note of caution to the effect that^the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too^inthe rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justifiedⁱⁿ embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in^theFIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the^courtto act according to its whim or caprice.”

¶80

(emphasis supplied)

¶81

¶82

A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in^Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre*^{heldasfollows;}

¶83

The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to he quashed, the test^tobe applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence.^Itis also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration^the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.”

¶84

(emphasis supplied)

¶85

As seen from the record, the offence alleged against the petitioner is under Sections 323, 341 and 506 of I.P.C. The basic requirements/ingredients to bring home the accusations^underthe

¶86

alleged offences are hereunder^

¶87

Offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt; Offence punishable under Section 341 I.P.C. Whoever, wrongfully restrains any person

¶88

Offence punishable under Section 506 I.P.C.

¶89

Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation

¶90

4 (1988) 1 see 692

¶91

¶92

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal^ in which it is held at paras 24 to 35 that, it is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature.

¶93

It is also trite to reiterate the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Anr v. The State Of Tamil Nadu®, which held thus;

¶94

“27. At the cost of repetition, we again state that^the purpose of filing a complaint and initiating criminal proceedings must exist solely to meet the ends of justice, and the law must not be used as a tool to harass the accused. The law, is meant to exist as a shield to protect the innocent, rather than it being used as a sword^to threaten them.”

¶95

(emphasis supplied)

¶96

In the light of the discussion referred supra, coming to the facts of the present case, in absence of any medical record to show that the de facto complainant suffered any injury in the hands of the petitioner and the pre-existing civil disputes between the parties, continuing criminal proceedings against them would amount to a mere abuse of

¶97

^(2022) 7 see 124 ^2022 see Online Se 1732

¶98

¶99

process of law. Hence it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under

¶100

Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

¶101