Partly allowed

M.Amarnadha Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2024CRLP/493/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed a criminal petition to quash an FIR against two accused in a temple trust case. While proceedings against the Secretary/Treasurer were kept alive for police investigation, the FIR against the Peetadhipathi was quashed as the Endowments Authority, not police, was the competent forum for action against him under the relevant Act. Proceeds against other petitioners were

What did the court decide?

F.I.R. 125/2017 quashed against the 2nd petitioner (Peetadhipathi). Proceedings against the 1st petitioner (Secretary) allowed to continue.

M.Amarnadha Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 493 OF 2018

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri.M.Amarnadha Reddy, S/o Srinivasa Reddy, aged about 56 years. Secretary and Treasurer, Sri Vysashramam, Yerpedu,^{ChittoorDistrict,} R/o. Door No. 16/1983, Srinivasa Agraharam, Nellore Town, SPSR Nellore District

¶8

Sri Paripurnadagiri Swamy, S/o Vidhyanandagiri Swamy, aged about 69 years, Peetadhipati Sri Vysashramam, Yerpedu, Chittoor^District

¶9

...Petitioners

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

¶12

The Station House Officer, Yerpedu Police Station, Tirupati Urban District, Andhra Pradesh

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Smt.D. Bramaramba, Regional Joint Commissioner (FAC), Endowments Department, Multi Zone-11, Tirupati, Chittoor^District

¶15

...Defacto - Complainants

¶16

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 F.I.R 125/2017 of Yerpedu P.S., for offences Under Sections 409, 403, 174, 176, 465, 468 IPC R/w Section 120 (B) of IPC.

¶17

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2018

¶18

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 stay all further proceedings in F.I.R 125/2017 of Yerpedu P.S., for offences. Under Sections 409, 403, 174, 176, 465, 468 IPC R/w. Section 120 (B) of IPC including^{thearrestofthe} Petitioner.

¶19

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing^{theMemorandum} of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G Rama Sarma .Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and^None for the Respondent No.3.

¶21

The Court made the following:

APHC010032222018

[3333]

»-

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

¶27

TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶30

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 493/2018

¶31

Between:

¶32

M.amarnadha Reddy and Others

¶33

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶34

AND

¶35

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Others

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶37

1.G RAMA SARMA

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶39

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶40

The Court made the following:

¶41

¶42

ORDER.

¶43

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short Cr P.C], ,s filed seeking ot quash the proceedings in F-I.R,No.125 of 2017 of Yerpedu Police Station for the offences under Sections 409. 403, 174. 176 465, 468 IPC read with Section 120 (B) of IPC The petitioners herein are arrayed as Accused No.1 and 2/A1 and A2 respectively. 2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 is the Secretary to Vyasashramam, Yerpedu since 2005, and A2 entered into the said Ashramam as Peethadhipathi since 20,03.2008. After entering^ofA2 as Peethadhipathi into the Ashramam, so many allegations leveled against A1 and A2, for not maintaining transparent administration that A1 and A2 criminally conspired together and have committed certain irregularities i.e.. misappropriation of Ashramam funds, non-production of accounts and records. non-cooperation for enquires and they are escaping to attend enquiries of the complainant and not cooperating to conduct enquiries regarding allegations leveled against them. A1 swallowed the funds and FDRs of the institution. A2 misappropriated and transferred the property of the above Ashramam in an extent of Ac.2.12 cents in Sy.No.69/6 of Yerpedu i in the name of A1, Secretary of the said Ashramam through Document No. 1429/2008 dated 09.06.2008 of the Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasthi Further, another property in an extent of Ac.0.42cents in Sy.101/8A situated at Sunkarapalem,

¶44

¶45

¶46

Thalloarevu, East Godavari District was sold to one Sri Mopuri Venkatareddy Naidu, Sunkarapalem Village for Rs.1,68,000/through Document No,4993/2011 dated 16.09.2011 of the Sub-Registrar, Thallaarevu, East Godavari District by giving power of Attorney to his brother Sri Sviaram (Asangananda) illegally without taking prior permission from Endowments department with an intent to wrongful gain and they^{causedwrongfullossto} the above Ashramam. Thus, they have committed criminal^breach of trust knowing well that amounts and property belongs to the^{Vyasaashramam,} Yerpedu and caused misappropriation and cheated the^{Vyasashramam.} Basing on the complaint of the 3'"' respondent/Regional^{JointCommissioner,} nd Endowment Department vide Lr.No.B3/4066/2017 dated^{03.12.2017tothe2} respondent/station House Officer of Yerpedu Police^{Station,TirupathiUrban} nd of District, the 2 respondent registered a case in F.I.R.No. 125 of 2017 Yerpedu Police Station for the offences under Sections^409,403, 174, 176, 465, 468 IPC read with Section 120 B of IPC.

¶47

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the material^onrecord.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that^{the2’^^petitioner} is the Peetadhipathi of the Ashram by succession and^{the1^'petitionerhaving} been legally nominated to the said post of Secretary^{andTreasurer,which} is an honorary post carrying no remuneration and the acts^{areunderthecontrol} of the Peetadhipathi/the 2 nd petitioner herein. The petitioners are not eyen public servants, banker, merchant or agents, hence,^{thepetitioners} cannot be

¶49

¶50

made liable for punishment under the alleged offences, which is nothing but abuse of due process of law. Even as per the complaint, dated 03.12.2017, A.P. Dharmika Parishad, Gollapudi, is the competent Authority to take action against the 2^^^ petitioner but not the 3^'^ respondent. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 5. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited^oraffected 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. 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. Bhajania! and others^ is considered as the guiding torch in the application^{ofSection482.At} paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows;

¶51

“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 power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under^{Section482ofthe} Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be

¶52

AIR 1992 SC 604

¶53

¶54

exercised either to 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 channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶55

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

¶56

(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(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶57

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against^theaccused.

¶58

(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.

¶59

(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.

¶60

(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.

¶61

(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.

¶62

VVe 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 in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to Its whim or caprice."

¶63

¶64

On a perusal of the letter/complaint dated 03.12.2017 addressed by the 3^'' respondent to the 2"^ respondent/the Station House Officer, Yerpedu Police Station, Yerpedu, which is base for registering the F.I.R.No.125 of 2017 dated 03.12.2017, it clearly states that a complaint was made to initiate criminal action against the 1®‘ petitioner, who is involved in the various allegations as alleged in the said complaint and it is also specifically stated that regarding the action against the second petitioner will be taken up by the A.P. Dharmika Parishad, Gollapudi, Vijayawada as the Dharmika Parishad is the competent authority to take action against the Peetadhipathi.

¶65

For better appreciation. Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable And Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 [Act No.30 OF 1987], which deals with the provision of Removal of Mathadhipathi, is extracted hereunder;

¶66

51. Removal of Mathadhipathi -

¶67

(1) The Dharmika Parishad may suo motu or on an application^oftwoor more persons having interest initiate proceedings for removing a Mathadhipathi or a trustee of a specific endowment attached to a math, if he-

¶68

(a) is of unsound mind;

¶69

(b) is suffering from any physical or mental defect or infirmity which renders him unfit to be a mathadhipathi or such trustee;

¶70

¶71

(d) has been sentenced for any offence involving moral turptitude, such sentence not having been reversed;

¶72

¶73

(e) is guilty of breach of trust, or mis-appropriation in respect of any of the properties of the math;

¶74

(f) commits persistent and wilful default in the exercise of his powers or performance of his functions under this Act; 1 Substituted by the Act No.33 of 2007, S.14 (w.e.f. 14-12-2007)

¶75

(g) violates any of the restrictions imposed or practices enjoined by the custom, usage or the tenets of the math, in relation^to his personal conduct, such as celibacy, renunciation and the like;

¶76

(h) leads an immoral life; or (i) fails or ignores to implement the principles set out in clause (17) of section 2.

¶77

(2) The Dharmika Parishad shall frame a charge on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) against the mathadhipathi or trustee concerned and give him an opportunity of meeting such charge, of testing the evidence adduced and of adducing evidence^inhisfavour. After considering the evidence adduced and other material before him, the Dharmika Parishad may, by order exonerate the mathadhipathi^or trustee, or remove him. Every such order shall state the charge framed against the mathadhipathi or the trustee, his explanation and the finding on such charge together with the reasons therefor;

¶78

Provided that in the case of a math or specific endowment attached thereto whose annual income exceeds rupees one lakh,^{theorderofremoval} passed by the Dharmika Parishad against the mathadhipathi^{ortrusteeshallnot} take effect unless it is confirmed by the Government.

¶79

(3) Pending the passing of an order under sub-section (2), the Dharmika Parishad may suspend the mathadhipathi or the trustee.

¶80

(4) Any mathadhipathi or trustee aggrieved by an order passed by the Dharmika Parishad under sub-section (2) may within ninety days from the date of the order appeal to the High Court against such order.

¶81

■ <br>

¶82

¶83

In view of the above provision of law, it is clear^{thattheDharmika} Parishad is the competent authority to take action^{againstthePeetadhipathi} i.e., the 2 nd petitioner herein, which is also mentioned in the letter/complai^nt dated 03.12,2017 addressed by the respondent to the^{2""'respondent.} Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that continuation^{ofproceedingsagainst} St the 2 nd petitioner is not tenable, So far the allegations against the 1 petitioner, it is for the police to conduct due investigation^{andfilefinalreport} and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same^atthisstage.

¶84

In view of the same, the Criminal Petition is partly^{allowedbyquashing} the F.I.R,No.125 of 2017 of Yerpedu Police Station against the 2 nd petitioner/A2. However, the respondents are at liberty to continue the proceedings against the 1®‘ petitioner. It is open^{fortheDharmikaParishad} who is the competent authority to take action if any,^{againstthe2"''petitioner} herein

¶85

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any^{pending,shallstand} closed.

¶86

Sd /- P.U.V.BHASKARA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶87

//TRUE COPY//

¶88

To,

¶89