Dadi Sriramakrishna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

the High Court to call the records in CC No.630/2018 on the file of the. Court of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and quash the same, in the interests of justice

¶18

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

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 stay all further proceedings in CC No.630/2018 on the file of the Court of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition, in the interest of justice j. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition -%nd upon hearing the arguments of Sri VENKAT CHALLA, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the RespondentNo.1 and of Sri V V SATISH, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶20

The Court made the following order:

¶21

APHC010220942022

¶22

/

¶23

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

¶24

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL

¶25

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶28

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3392/2022

¶29

Between:

¶30

1.DAD! SRIRAMAKRISHNA, S/0. LATE SREERAMULU, AGED 52 YEARS, CASTE BY GAVARA, DOOR NO. 15-1-36, RADHA MADHAVA TOWERS, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY.

¶31

2.0MMI APPALARAJU, S/0. APPARAO, AGED 45 YEARS, YADAVA CASTE, D.NO.7-108, SATTIVANIPALEM VILLAGE, PENDURTY MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY.

¶32

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED{S)

¶33

AND

¶34

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT^OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI.

¶35

2.MARISETTI PEDA MALLEPULU, S/0. LATE PENTAIAH, AGE. 62 YEARS, D.NO.6-57-26, SRAMIKA NAGAR, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶37

1.VENKATCHALLA

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶39

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶40

2.VVSATISH

¶41

The Court made the following:

¶42

ORDER:

¶43

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal^Procedure 1973 1 is preferred by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in C.C.No.630^of2018onthe file of

¶44

for short ‘Cr.P.C’

¶45

2

¶46

the Court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam^{fortheoffencesunder} Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian^{PenalCode,1860^.} 2. Heard Sri Venkat Challa, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent^No.1. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that^{theallegations} leveled against the Petitioners are bald and omnibus. Learned counsel would further submit that the present case has been registered^{asacounterblastto} the complaint lodged in Crime No.208 of 2014 by Petitioner^No.1/Accused No.1 herein, with false and untenable allegations. It is submitted that there are no specific overt acts attributed against Petitioner No.2/Accused^No.2and there is no material to connect him with the present crime. Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 and his family members are the owners^ofthesubject property. As such, the alleged commission of criminal^{trespassandthe} consequential offences do not attract against the Petitioners. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners^{isanabuseofprocessof} law. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against^{thePetitioners,} In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in S.Venkata Naga KIshore vs.^{StateofA.P.and} others^ and a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dr.Niyamathulla^Khanvs. State of A.P. and another'*.

¶47

^ for short‘IPC’ ^ Crl.P.No.107 of 2020, dated 22.04.2024 Crl.P.Nos.7731 & 10087 of 2014, dated 14.08.2023

¶48

3

¶49

o.

¶50

Contrasting the same, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations will be revealed during trial. Therefore, the proceedings against the Petitioners, at this stage, cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶51

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

¶52

Point for Determination

¶53

Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination^is:

¶54

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment^of proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1^and2in C.C.No.630 of 2018 on the file of the Court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam?

¶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 powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling

¶57

reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.

¶58

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. Bhajanlal and others^ is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows:

¶59

“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 Section 482 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 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.

¶60

(1) 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 prime facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶61

(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^theCode.

¶62

(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 the accused.

¶63

(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

¶64

5 AIR 1992 SC 604

¶65

a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of^the Code.

¶66

(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.

¶67

(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.

¶68

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended^withmala 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.

¶69

IVe 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^inthe 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."

¶70

(emphasis supplied)

¶71

In the present case, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint alleging that he is the President of Satavahana House Building Society. On the 10.03.2017, on receipt of information about the trespassers into the land pertaining to the building society, he went to the scene and noticed that Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 trespassed into the said land. When Respondent No.2 questioned about their highhanded act of leveling the land with tractors, the Petitioners threatened with dire consequences. Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No. 186 of 2017 has been lodged against the Petitioners for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34

¶72

IPC on the file of Pendurthy Police Station, The Police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet for the alleged offences.

¶73

As seen from the record, originally one Namburi Seethapathi is the owner of the land of an extent of Ac.21.06 cents in Sy.Nos.325/1, 2, 3 of Sathivanipalem Village, Narava Revenue and after his demise, in family partition, Namburi family got Ac. 10.53 cents of land towards their share, Subsequently, Namburi family executed an agreement of sale for an extent of Ac.8.73 cents in Sy.Nos.325/1, 2, 3 in favour of Sathavahana House Building Society and executed sale deeds. While so, VUDA has approved layout for an extent of Ac. 8.73 cents as such, the Society filed O.S.No.1135 of 2005 on the file of the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for specific performance and the same was decreed. With regard to the subject property, the Petitioner No.1 also filed a claim petition claiming title over the said property basing on the Pattadar Passbooks l-B Register and the Sale Deeds in their favour and the said application is pending. Further, Petitioner No.1 filed O.S.No.343 of 2002 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam as there was a threat of his dispossession by the Members of the Society and the said suit was decreed in his favour and the same attained finality. Petitioner No.1 also lodged a criminal complaint against Respondent No.2, which was registered as a case in Crime No.208 of 2014, dated 26.04.2014 i m respect of the subject property, wherein, charge sheet was also filed.

¶74

41

¶75

•11. In view of the above-mentioned circumstances, it is^{clearthattheentire} dispute revolves round the subject property and there involves the dispute of title and possession over the subject land. The allegations^made in the complaint appear to be directly relating to a civil dispute and Respondent No.2 resorted to criminal prosecution against the Petitioners by inviting the Police to be interfered with the civil litigation. Further, a bare perusal of complaint would disclose that there is no material to show the involvement of Petitioner/Accused No.2 in the commission of the alleged^offences. 12. In Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others® the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para No. 12 held as follows:

¶76

‘‘12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may^alsohave a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak^ofcriminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High^Courtshould not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent^abuseof process of the court. ”

¶77

On an overall consideration of the entire material placed on record and the judgments referred to supra, it is suffice to conclude that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the material produced before this Court directly indicate the mala fides in initiating criminal proceedings against the Petitioners, as an arm-twisting method to bring them

¶78

'^(2013) 11 see 673

¶79

to the terms of Respondent No.2 and to cloak a civil dispute with criminal ' nature. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioners are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners. 14. In result, the Criminal Petition i IS allowed and the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.630 of 2018 on the file of the Court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 IPC are hereby quashed.

¶80

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶81

Sd/- A VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶82

To

¶83

SECTION OFFICER

¶84