Nerusu Rama Krishna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHC010277112023

¶2

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

¶3

[3327]

¶4

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3863/2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

NERUSU RAMA KRISHNA, S/O SURYA RAO, AGED 48 YRS R/AT D.NO. 16A-5-4 , TANGELLAMUDI, ELURU , WEST GODAVARI DIST.,

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

A N D

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE S.H.O., OF II TOWN POLICE STATION ELURU REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI.

¶12

PEPAKALA SUBBA LAKSHMI, W/O GOPI KRISHNA , AGED 32 YRS ARUNDATI COLONY, TANGELLAMUDI, ELURU

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶14

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to pass an Order to Quash the Impugned Proceedings in C.C. No.151/2023 on the file of 2nd Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Eluru as against the petitioner/Accused in the interest of the justice. and pass

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with certified copy of C.C.No.151/2023 on the file of 2nd Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Eluru before this Hon'ble Court and pass

¶17

2

¶18

SRK, J Crl.P.No.3863 of 2023

¶19

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to pass an Order to STAY of all the further proceedings in the Impugned C.C. No.151/2023 on the file of 2nd Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Eluru against the petitioner/Accused including the appearance of the Accused pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition in the interest of the justice. and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶22

1.R SIVA SAI SWARUP

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶24

1.ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU

¶25

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

SRK, J Crl.P.No.3863 of 2023

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 8CrPC9) has been filed by the petitioner/Accused, to quash the charge sheet in Calendar Case No.151 of 2023 pending on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, arising out of a case in Crime No.87 of 2022 of II Town Police Station, Eluru, registered against the petitioner/Accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 8IPC9).

¶31

The allegations levelled as against the petitioner/ accused in the charge sheet, in brief, are that, respondent No.2/ de facto complainant was eking out her livelihood by working as an Accountant in Sri Bala Balaji Srinivasa Automobiles, Kandrikagudem, Eluru and she is the sister of L.W2-Thota Swathi and she is a coolie; that they are having vicinity at Arundati Colony, Tangellamudi, Eluru and the petitioner/accused is having vicinity at Yadavanagar, Tangellamudi, Eluru. On 27.02.2022 at about 5.30 p.m. the petitioner/accused and some others were alleged to have come to near Peniel Church, Tangellamudi, Eluru and trespassed into the house of respondent No.2/ de facto complainant and was alleged to have threatened the respondent No.2/ de facto

¶32

4

¶33

SRK, J Crl.P.No.3863 of 2023

¶34

complainant and her children with dire consequences. The incident was said to have witnessed by L.W3/Bommi Durga, L.W4/ Paidimukkala Subba Lakshmi and L.W5/Sadi Chandrakala. The caes was reported to police and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.87 of 2022 of II Town Police Station, Eluru and investigated into. After completion of investigation, L.W7/K.Prasad, Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Eluru filed charge sheet.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would contend that the petitioner/accused acquired the house property bearing Door No.16A-1-106 in Plot No.106, Tangellamudi, Eluru through a Sale Deed, dated 10.04.2010 and in the year 2013 the respondent No.2/ de facto complainant having taken the said premises for lease, in order to grab the said property, filed Original Suit No.143 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-

¶36

cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru and obtained the ex parte ad interim injunction order, and when the same was questioned, the respondent No.2/ de facto complainant falsely implicated the offences against the petitioner/accused. According to learned counsel, the offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC does not attract against the petitioner/accused, as he is the true

¶37

5

¶38

SRK, J Crl.P.No.3863 of 2023

¶39

owner of the subject property. He further submits that in the absence of any prima facie case made out even if the entire allegations are taken as true and correct, continuation of impugned proceedings against the petitioner/accused is nothing but abuse of process of Court and hence, he prays to allow the Criminal Petition.

¶40

Learned counsel for respondent No.2/ de facto complainant would contend that the petitioner/accused was harassing the respondent No.2/ de facto complainant and previously also, because of the harassment of petitioner/accused, the husband of respondent No.2/ de facto complainant had committed suicide. According to learned counsel, the petitioner/accused criminally trespassed into the house of respondent No.2/ de facto complainant, committed mischief by throwing away the utensils and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

¶41

Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State, too concurs with the argument of learned counsel for the respondent No.2/ de facto complainant. According to him, there are eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

¶42

6

¶43

SRK, J Crl.P.No.3863 of 2023

¶44

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent No.2/ de facto complainant. Perused the entire material available on record.

¶45

There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court is also conscious of the fact 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 and that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the report. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon9ble Apex court in State of Haryana Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and ors .¹ , wherein the Hon9ble Apex Court held as under:

¶46

<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

¶47

1 AIR 1992 SC 604

¶48

7

¶49

SRK, J Crl.P.No.3863 of 2023

¶50

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

¶51

(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 prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

¶52

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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;

¶53

(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;

¶54

(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;

¶55

(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;

¶56

(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

¶57

8

¶58

SRK, J Crl.P.No.3863 of 2023

¶59

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;

¶60

(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.=

¶61

The offences that are alleged as against the petitioner/ accused are punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 506 of IPC. If any of the acts to interfere with another9s peaceful enjoyment of property, either movable or immovable, such acts amount to trespass. If trespass is committed without criminal intention, it is dealt with under the law of torts. But, if trespass is committed with the criminal intention to cause harm to anyone, then it is criminal trespass. According to Section 441 of IPC, criminal trespass is committed, if a person unlawfully enters or, if lawfully entered, remains there unlawfully intending to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult, or annoy any person in possession of such property. It is not necessary that the annoyance resulting from trespass be instantaneous, it may be subsequent.

¶62

The essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC are that the accused threatened someone with injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person,

¶63

9

¶64

SRK, J Crl.P.No.3863 of 2023

¶65

reputation or property of another in whom the former was interested and the accused did so with intent to cause alarm to the victim of offence and to cause the victim to perform any act which he was not legally bound to do.

¶66

The essential ingredients to prove the offence punishable under Section 427 IPC are that the accused intentionally or with knowledge commits such an act that causes wrongful loss or damage to large public or an individual or causes damage to their property which ultimately diminishes its value or affects the person, commits the offence of mischief. To hold an accused liable for this offence, it is important to have the intention behind committing such an act.

¶67

A perusal of the allegations in the charge sheet coupled with the statements of list of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the Investigating Officer goes to show that the alleged incident of criminal trespass and mischief was said to have occurred on 27.02.2022 at about 5.30 p.m. As per Section 161 CrPC statement of respondent No.2/ de facto complainant, prior to the incident, there were monetary disputes between the petitioner/accused and the husband of respondent No.2/ de facto complainant and though, her

¶68

10

¶69

SRK, J Crl.P.No.3863 of 2023

¶70

husband discharged the debt due to the petitioner/accused, because of the harassment of petitioner/accused, the husband of respondent No.2/ de facto complainant was alleged to have committed suicide. It is her further statement that the petitioner/accused used to harass the respondent No.2/ de facto complainant and threaten her and her children with dire consequences. It is also stated that the petitioner/accused broke open the house lock of the respondent No.2/ de facto complainant and threw the household articles outside. The alleged incident was said to have witnessed by L.W2/Thota Swathi, L.W3/Bommi Durga, L.W4/Paidimukkala Subba Lakshmi and L.W5/Sadi Chandrakala.

¶71

A perusal of Section 161 CrPC statement of L.W2/ Thota Swathi goes to show that, the respondent No.2/ de facto complainant is her sister-in-law and she is residing with her. She further stated that the petitioner/accused was harassing the respondent No.2/ de facto complainant to discharge the debt alleged to be due by her husband. With regard to the incident proper, she stated that the petitioner/accused criminally trespassed into the house of respondent No.2/ de facto complainant, break opened the house lock and thrown away the household articles outside.

¶72

11

¶73

SRK, J Crl.P.No.3863 of 2023

¶74

A perusal of the statements of L.W3/Bommi Durga, L.W4/Paidimukkala Subba Lakshmi and L.W5/Sadi Chandrakala recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 CrPC goes to show that the petitioner/accused criminally trespassed into the house of respondent No.2/ de facto complainant, threatened her and committed mischief by throwing away the household articles. Prima facie there is relevant material as against the petitioner/accused to connect him to the subject crime. Furthermore, the petitioner/ accused filed copy of ex parte ad interim injunction order dated 19.04.2022 granted in favour of petitioner/accused in O.S.No.143 of 2022 pending on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judgecum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, which prima facie goes to show that there is civil dispute pending between the petitioner/accused and respondent No.2/ de facto complainant. Though, it is contended that in order to grab the immovable property belongs to petitioner/accused, the respondent No.2/ de facto complainant falsely implicated the petitioner/accused to the subject crime, this Court, at this stage, cannot conduct a roving inquiry into the disputed questions of fact and it can only be decided only after full-fledged trial. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings in Calendar Case No.151 of 2023 pending

¶75

12

¶76

SRK, J Crl.P.No.3863 of 2023

¶77

on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru and the Criminal Petition deserved to be dismissed. However, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the aforesaid case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶78

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶79

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶80

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶81

9^th April, 2026.

¶82

DNB

Nerusu Rama Krishna v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nerusu Rama Krishna v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thatiparthi Sasi Kumar Vs State of Ap

Gompa Nooka Raju Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Vankadara Chinna Chennappa Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

G Bashu Saheb Vs the State of Ap

Attaluri Phani Venkata Gopal, Vs The State- Station House Officer

K. Rambabu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh