Partly allowed

Suryadevara Venkata Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 May 2024CRLP/633/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashment of Crime No.12 of 2020 alleging false implication after a political scuffle. The court held police cannot investigate Section 188 IPC offences due to the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C., and quashed only that offence; proceedings for remaining offences continue.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No.12 of 2020 quashed only for offence under Section 188 IPC; proceedings for all other alleged offences shall continue.

Suryadevara Venkata Rao, Vs The State of Andhra… — Caste Atrocities | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

a \

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 633 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Suryadevara Venkata Rao, S/o. Subhas Chandra Bose, aged 49, R/o D.No.5-39, Angalakuduru (v), Tenali (Md), Guntur (Dt).

¶9

Kanagala Nagabushanam, S/o Nageswar Rao, aged 45^R/o D.No.3112, Angalakuduru (v), Tenali (Md), Guntur (Dt).

¶10

...PETITIONER/A2 & A1 RESPECTIVELY

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, (Tenali I Town Police Station) Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,^Amaravati

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶14

Chunduru Gopinadh @ Gopi, S/o Nageswar Rao, aged^21,R/o Angalakuduru (v), Tenali (Md), Guntur (Dt).

¶15

...RESPONDENT/ 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 be pleased to quash the Crime No. 12/2020^ofTenali I Town Police Station against the petitioners herein (A2 and Al)

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing^{theMemorandum} of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Posani Akash, Advocate for the Petitioner and the^{PublicProsecutor} on behalf of the Respondent N0.I and None Appeared by person or Advocate for the Respondent No. 2

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

¶20

APHC010041232020

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶22

TUESDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 633/2020

¶25

Between:

¶26

Suryadevara Venkata Rao, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND

¶27

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

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶29

1.POSANI VENKATESWARLU

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶31

The Court made the following:

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 1 respectively seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime^{No. 12of2020onthe} file of Tenali I Town Police Station, Guntur District, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 324, 341, 120B read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code^ and Section 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989^.

¶34

' for short ‘Cr.P.C’

¶35

2 for short ‘I.P.C.’

¶36

^ for short ‘the Act’

¶37

¶38

¶39

Facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: a. On 25.01.2020, at about 1.30 p.m., while the Respondent No.2/ Complainant was returning home from Gandhi Municipal Vegetable market Tenali, on his motorcycle, on noticing a scuffle between the people belonging to Telugu Desam Party and Y.S.R.Congress Party, when he tried to go through the Eastern side road. Petitioners herein abused him stating that “Ee Maala Madiga Naa Kodukula Valanane maa party odipoyinadi”.

¶40

b. Accused Nos.3 to 10 felled RespondentNo.2 down^{andAccusedNo.10} pressed his neck with her leg. Accused No.9 beat him with a stick on his waist. Accused No.5 beat on his flank. Remaining Accused beat him indiscriminately with due to which he received injuries^on his nose, mouth, neck and left jaw and blood oozed from his mouth. Then the people who belong to the village of Respondent No.2 rescued him^{fromthehandsofthe} accused. As such. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against all the Accused, which was registered as a case in Crime No.12 of 2020 for the alleged offences.

¶41

Aggrieved thereby. Petitioners filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them on the following grounds: a. Petitioners are falsely implicated in the present crime. They have not committed any offence much less the alleged offences. b. On 25.01.2020, the people belonging to YSR Congress Party organized a counter rally and at that time, there was a tussle and tent was burnt down by anti-social elements and about the said incident one of the injured

¶42

¶43

Md.Khuddus submitted a written report to the DSP which was registered as a case in Crime No.13 of 2020 of Tenali Town Police Station for the offences under Sections 143, 423, 324, 506 and 188 read with 149 IPC. The Petitioners came to know that though the said report was lodged much prior to the statement said to have been recorded from Respondent No.2 herein, got registered the crime basing on the report of Md.Khuddus. Petitioners came to know that Respondent No.2 herein had thrown a lighted petrol bottle on the tent, which was noticed by some of the persons, who were in the tent. The Petitioners came to know that the Respondent No.2 gave statement against the Petitioners and others to overcome the said allegation,

¶44

c. There are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law.

¶45

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

¶46

Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing Respondent No. 1/State. Despite service of notice, none represented for Respondent No.2.

¶47

Learned counsel for the Petitioners in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition, would submit that, the allegations in the complaint do not attract the offences alleged against the Petitioners. The present^casehasbeen foisted against the Petitioners with false and vague allegations. There are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners. In support of his

¶48

¶49

¶50

contention, learned counsel has relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others'* and High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Gara Yesobu and others v. State of A.P. and Others®

¶51

Refuting the above arguments, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations relating^{toSection149IPC.} It is also stated that in view of the stay granted in this matter, there is no progress in the investigation. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings at this stage and prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶52

Point for Determination

¶53

Having heard the submissions of the learned counsels, now the point that would emerge for determination is:

¶54

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment^of the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.^2and 1 respectively in Crime No. 12 of 2020 on the file of^Tenali I Town Police Station, Guntur District?

¶55

Determination by the Court

¶56

A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited^{oraffectedsoasto} 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

¶57

' 1992 Supp(l) see 335

’ MANU/AP/1307/2004

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. 9. It is alleged in the complaint that on 25.01.2020 at about 1.30 p.m., while Respondent No.2/Complainant was returning home from Gandhi Municipal Vegetable market, Tenali, on his motorcycle. Petitioners herein abused him in the name of his castd and the remaining^{Accusedbeathim} as a result of which, he sustained bleeding injuries, It is the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the Petitioners that on 25.01.2020 the people belonging to YSR Congress Party organized a counter rally and at that time. Respondent No.2 herein had thrown a lighted petrol bottle on the tent, and the same was noticed by some of the persons, who were in the tent. It is further contended that one Md.Khuddus, who sustained injuries^{inthesaidincident} also lodged a complaint with the Police which was registered^asacase in Crime No. 13 of 2020 of Tenali I Town Police Station for the offences under Sections 143, 423, 324, 506 and 18*8 read with 149 IPC. Respondent No.2, to overcome the said allegations has lodged the present complaint against the Petitioners herein and the other Accused.

¶62

However, in view of the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C., the Police are not empowered to investigate into the offence punishable under Section 188 ■ of IPC and file charge sheet basing on a police report. Therefore, registration of the case for the offence under Section 188 IPC and continuation of

¶63

¶64

proceedings for the said offence would amount to abuse of process of the Court. However, the allegations made against the Petitioners with regard to commission of rest of the offences, are sufficient enough for the investigation to be done. Further, in the present .case, due to the stay granted at the inception, there is no progress in the investigation to reveal the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the Petitioners. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners for the offence under Section 188 IPC, however, is desirable to continue the proceedings against them for the offence under Sections 143, 324, 341, 120B read with 149 IPC and Section 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of the Act.

¶65

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners in C;'ime No. 12 of 2020 on the file of Tenali I Town Police Station, Guntur District for the offence under Section 188 IPC. The proceedings against Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 324, 341, 120B read with 149 IPC and Section 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, shall continue in accordance with law.

¶66

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall

stand closed.

To,

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶71

The Station House Officer, Tenali I Town Police Station, Guntur District 2. One CC to Sri Posani Akash Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC to the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. I WO CD Copies

psr

BKB - ER

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/05/2024

ORDER