Allowed

Sirigiri Venkatesh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Aug 2024CRLP/9774/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Protest complaint filed after police referred an FIR as false led the Magistrate to take cognizance against fifteen accused via a docket order without assigning reasons. Holding the order slipshod and the complaint a counterblast to a case in which the complainant was convicted, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.183 of 2018 on file of Judicial Magistrate of l-Class, Nandaluru and the docket order dated 06.08.2018 were quashed.

Sirigiri Venkatesh 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 TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9774 OF 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

I.Sirigiri Venkatesh, s/o S.Ramachandraiah, aged about 35 years, R/o

¶9

Jadavaripalli Village, Penagaluru Mandal, YSR Kadapa^District.

¶10

Sirigiri Ramachandraiah, S/o S.Subbaiah aged about 55 years, R/o

¶11

Jadavaripalli Village, Penagaluru Mandal, YSR Kadapa^District.

¶12

Sirigiri Eswaramma, w/o S.Ramachandraiah aged about 51 years, R/o

¶13

Jadavaripalli Village, Penagaluru Mandal, YSR Kadapa^District.

¶14

Jonnalagadda Subha Rayudu, s/o J.Narasaiah aged about 53 years,

¶15

R/o Jadavaripalli Village, Penagaluru Mandal, YSR Kadapa^District.

¶16

Jonnalagadda Venkata Subbamma, w/o J subharayudu, aged about 48 years, R/o Jadavaripalli Village, Penagaluru Mandal YSR Kadapa

¶17

District.

¶18

Sirigiri Sireesha, w/o S" Venkatesh, aged about 31 years, R/o

¶19

Jadavaripalli Village, Penagaluru Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶20

Jada Chinnaiah, S/o J Venkataswamy aged about 55 years, R/o Jadavaripalli Village, Penagaluru Mandal, YSR Kadapa^District.

¶21

Jada Nagamani, w/o J Chinnaiah aged about 48 years R/o

¶22

Jadavaripalli Village, Penagaluru Mandal, YSR Kadapa^District.

¶23

Jada Gangaiah, S/o J Venkataswamy, aged about 49 years, R/o Jadavaripalli Village, Penagaluru Mandal, YSR Kadapa^District

¶24

Jada Venkata Subbamma, s/o J Gangaiah, aged about⁴⁰ years, R/o Jadavaripai Penagaluru Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶25

Jada Vanaja, w/o J Venkatesh, aged about 37 years, R/o Jadavaripalli Village, Penagaluru Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶26

Ingolu Padmavathamma, w/o I Subbarayudu, aged about⁵¹ years, R/o Penagaluru Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶27

Pasupulati Chalapathi, s/o P.Peda Vankataiah, aged about 50 years R/o Jadavaripalli Village, Penagaluru Mandal, YSR Kadapa

¶28

Pasupulati Bujjamma, w/6 P.Adinarayan, aged about 25 years, R/o Jadavaripalli Village, Penagaluru Mandal, YSR Kadapa^District

¶29

Pasupulati Lakshumma, w/o P.Sivaiah aged about 50 years, R/o

¶30

Jadavaripalli Village, Penagaluru Mandal, YSR Kadapa^District.

¶31

...Petitioners/Accused ; : AND

¶32

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor

¶33

High Court, at Hyderabad •

¶34

...Respondent

¶35

Kayala Sudhakar, S/o Yanadaiah, aged about 33 years, R/o

¶36

Jadavaripalli Village, Penagaluru Mandal, YSR Kadapa^District.

¶37

...Respondent/Complainant

¶38

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

¶39

may be pleased to quash the complaint in C.C. No. 183 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of l-Class, at Nandalulru.

¶40

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶41

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 extend the Interim orders dated 14-19-2018 initially granted in CRLP No.9774 of 2018 until further orders.

¶42

This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Swapna Priya Chakkilam, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Dhanunjaya Baru, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2

¶43

■5 V - ‘ The Court made the following:

}

APHC010676652018

[3333]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶49

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶50

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶51

PRESENT

¶52

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶53

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9774/2018

¶54

Between:

¶55

Sirigiri Venkatesh and Others

¶56

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶57

AND

¶58

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

¶59

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶60

1.SWAPNA PRIYA CHAKKILAM

¶61

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶62

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶63

2.DHANUNJAYABARU

¶64

The Court made the following:

¶65

2 VS,J CrI.P 9774 2018

¶66

ORDER:

¶67

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.RC.”) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.183 of 2018 (Protest Petition) on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of^{l-ClassNandaluru.}

¶68

Accused Nos.1 to 15 are the petitioners herein and respondent No.2 is the complainant. The respondent No.2 has submitted a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Penagaluru Police Station, stating that he is a cooli worker; that on 03.05.2015 at 08.30pm, when he went to the public tap to get drinking water, found the 6''^ petitioner herein washing clothes and when he requested her to go aside, the 6*^ respondent has abused the respondent No.2 herein in filthy language. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 was pushed down and was beat by the petitioner Nos.1 to 5 herein and while so, he was also bet with stick on the left side of his head and also on his chest, which caused him a bleeding injury. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 was admitted in Government Hospital, Rajampet for treatment by one Kanche Sreenivasulu and Kayala Rajamohan. Basing on the said complaint, the Police have registered F.I.R.No.22 on 05.05.2015 against the petitioner Nos.1 to 5 herein, for the offences punishable under Section^{324readwith34} of IPC.

¶69

Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Penagalur^{PoliceStation} has continued further investigation and addressed a letter to the SubDivisional Police Officer, Rajampet Sub-Division on 17.07.2015, the relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder; “...My investigation in this case so for made disclosed^{thatonexamination} LW1, he corroborated with his FIR report in all aspects. But the eye witnesses LW’s 2 to 5, they stated that - ‘they are residents of Jadavaripalli (V), Penagalu (M) and living by coolly works and witnessed^theoffence occurred on 03.05.15 at 06.00 PM. While they are in the street near public

¶70

3 VS,j CrI.P 9774 2018

¶71

tap, at that time the alleged accused A. 6 by name Sireesha ivas present at the public tap. Then the complainant and his brother^came to her and scolded A. 6 and outraged her modesty in the public place and threatened her with dire consequences. On that on 04.05.15, the alleged accused A.6 went to Penagalur PS and reported a case against the complainant and his brother. They further stated that none were bet the L.W 1 with sticks, hands and legs, in that scuffle L.W 1 himself slipped and^{felldownandsustained} bleeding injury on his head and chest. With mollified intention after knowing the case booked against him and his brothe,r on the same night he voluntarily got admitted in Government Hospital, Rajampet and gave a false written report. And the contents made by LW1 in his report are totally false and baseless. ”

¶72

Upon receiving the aforesaid letter dated 17.07.2015, the SubDivisional Police Officer, Rajampet vide R.C.No.199/SDPO-RJPT/15 , dated 17.07.2015 has permitted to refer the case as ‘false’. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.2 has filed a private complaint (protest complaint petition) on 02.02.2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of l-Class, Nandaluru against the petitioners herein under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323, 506 read with 149 of IPC. Upon such protest complaint petition, the learned Magistrate on 06.08.2018 has taken cognizance of the said complaint^{undertheaforesaid} sections and issued summons to the petitioners herein. The present criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the complaint in^{C.C.No.183of2018onthe} file of learned Judicial Magistrate of l-Class, Nandaluru.

¶73

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating contentions raised in the petition has further contended that on 03.05.2015, when the 6*^ petitioner herein was fetching water at a public tap, she was abused by the 2^^ respondent^{andhisbrotherin} filthy language and beat her. The same was reported^{tothePoliceandafter} investigation a case in C.C.No.108 of 2015 was filed wherein the respondent

¶74

¶75

VS,J Crl.P_9774 2018

¶76

No.2 and his brother are accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively.^{Boththeaccused} in the aforesaid case were convicted vide judgment^{dated02.10.2016forthe} offences under Sections 352 and 506(1) of IPC. However, with a view^to avoid prosecution, as a counter blast, the respondent No.2 has filed a complaint on 05.05.2015 which was registered as Crime No.22 of 2015 alleging that he was abused and was injured by the petitioners herein. But, the Police after investigation have referred the same as ‘false complaint’. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 has filed a protest complaint petition before the Judicial Magistrate of 1®* Class, Nandalur vide CC.No.183 of 2018, wherein the Court below did not assign any reasons for passing such an order taking cognizance against the petitioners herein and requested to set-aside^{thedocketorder} dated 06.08.2018.

¶77

Learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant/2 nd respondent has contended that subsequent to registration of FIR.No.22 of 2015, the Police has never examined the complainant and witnesses, but, however basing on false statements of the witnesses,^{referredthecaseas} false. He further contended that when the complainant entered the village in order to go to his house, all the petitioners herein^{havechasedhimarmedwith} sticks and stones. Taking into consideration all the facts, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and has issued summons to the petitioners. Learned counsel further stated that the allegations made in the complaint are sufficient to take cognizance against the petitioners herein and requested to dismiss the petition.

¶78

Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows:

¶79

¶80

VS,j CrI.P 9774 2018

¶81

“Whether the complaint against the petitioners in CC.No.183^of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of l-Class, Nandaluru and the docket order dated 06.08.2018 passed therein,^{areliabletobe} quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482^{ofCr.P.C.?”}

¶82

The present petition has been filed under Section 482^ofCr.P.C.

¶83

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^{thatwhenaCourt} has authority to make an order, it must also have 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^failto 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.

¶84

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

¶85

AIR 1960 SC 866

¶86

6 VS,J CrI.P 9774 2018

¶87

“(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;

¶88

(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;

¶89

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

¶90

(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged^{butthereiseitherno} legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. ”

¶91

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers^the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute^theoffence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the 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 held by the Apex Court in ‘Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumai^’’

^ AIR 1990 SC 494

VS,. CrI.P 9774 2018

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

¶96

It is evident from the record that the 2"^^ respondent^hasmadea complaint against the petitioner Nos.1 to 5 herein and an FIR was registered vide FIR.No.22 on 05.05.2015 against the aforesaid petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 324 read with 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Penagalur Police Station, he has come to a conclusion that the complaint made by the respondent No.2 is false and the same was intimated to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Rajampet who in turn has also permitted to refer the case as false. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.2 has filed a protest petition before the Court below duly implicating the other 10 members as accused, who^arealsothe petitioners herein. However, the court below, without even verifying as to why the other ten persons were not included in the FIR, has passed the following docket order on 06.08.2018:

¶97

“This is a protest complaint petition filed by the complainant u/Sec.200 IPC. Perused the protest petition and sworn statement of PW1 and 2. There is prime facie case made out against the Accused. Hence taken on filed against the^{accusedfortheoffenceu/Sec...”}

¶98

As seen from the above docket order dated 06.08.2018,^the trial court did not assign any reason for passing such an order for taking cognizance against the petitioners herein. Time and again, the Apex Court and this Court issued certain guidelines to be followed for drafting judgments/orders and highlighted the requirements of an order or judgment.

¶99

An order pronounced on the bench shall contain the reasoning since the judge speaks with authority by his judgment/order. The strength of a judgment/order lies in its reasoning and it should therefore be convincing. Clarity of exposition is always essential. In the words^{ofFormerChiefJustice}

¶100

¶101

VS,J Crl.P_9774 2018

¶102

of the Supreme Court Sabyasachi Mukharji, the requirement of a good judgment/order is reason. Judgment is of value on the strength of its reasons. The weight of a judgment/order, its binding character or its persuasive character depends on the presentation and articulation of reasons. Reason, therefore, is the soul and spirit of a good judgment/order. When an order is pronounced without reasoning, it is not an order in the eye of law for the reason that the requirement of reasoning either by trial Court or Appellate Court is to convey the mind of the judge while deciding^{suchanissuebefore} the Court. A judge is required to apply his/her mind and give focused consideration to rival contentions raised by both parties.

¶103

The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case^wherethe order is passed at the original stage, a decision without reasons is like grass without root, the requirement to record reasons is one of the principles of natural justice as well and where a statute required recording of reasons in support of the order, it must be done by the authorities concerned as held by the Apex Court in “S.M. Mukerji v. Union of India^ \r\ view of the principle laid down in the above judgment, it can be said that the order passed by the Court below is nothing but a slipshod one. Therefore, the docket order dated 06.08.2018 is liable to be set-aside on this ground^alone.

¶104

Even otherwise, it can be seen from the record that it was the respondent who started to abuse the 6’^ petitioner herein and as such, a case in C.C.No.108 of 2015 was filed by the petitioners herein against the respondent No.2 and his brother; wherein they were^{convictedfortheoffences} under Sections 352 and 506(1) of IPC. The impugned^{CC.No.183of2018on} the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of l-Class, Nandaluru is filed only as a counterblast to the criminal case filed against the respondent No.2. When the ^1990 Crl.L.J.2148

¶105

¶106

VS,. CrI.P 9774 2018

¶107

Police have concluded that the complaint given by the respondent No.2 in FIR.No.22 of 2015 itself is false, the question of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate in the protest petition filed by the 2’^^ respondent, without assigning any reasons is purely abuse of process of^thelaw. It can also be observed that originally FIR was filed as against only 5 accused, however, in the protest petition the 2^^^^ respondent has impleaded^{10moreaccusedand} the court below without even verifying the said fact^{videdocketorderdated} 06.08.2018 has directed the police to investigate into^thematter.

¶108

In the result, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.183 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of l-Class, Nandaluru and the docket order dated 06.08.2018 passed therein, are hereby quashed.

¶109

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶110

SD/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶111

To, 1. The Judicial Magistrate of l-Class, at Nandalulru, YSR Kadapa District

¶112