Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Malladi Venkata Raju And Others vs State Of Ap And Others on 17 September, 2024
APHC010520962018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7389/2018
Between:
Malladi Venkata Raju and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. K V SUBBA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C.") to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.16 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judicial 2nd Class Magistrate, Narsapur, West Godavari District filed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 427, 448, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").
2. Petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 8. Respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant.
3. The 2nd respondent herein has filed a private complaint under Section 190(1) of Cr.P.C on the file of the Court of Special Judicial 2nd Class Magistrate, Narsapur, stating that the petitioners herein are family members residing in Vemuladeevi east village. It is stated that the schedule property in Vemuladeevi East belongs to the panchayat but was occupied by the 1st petitioner herein; that a notice has been issued to the 1st petitioner by the panchayat secretary to leave the schedule property and has called all the villagers to take action by conducting survey in the same. The 2 nd respondent and his friend namely Tirumani Vaddikasulu attended the survey being the elders of the village. The revenue authorities and other elders of the village told the 1st petitioner herein to leave the schedule property, in the presence of the petitioner Nos.2 to 8 herein who used vulgar language against all the village elders. It is further stated that keeping in view the same, the petitioners bore grudge against the 2nd respondent herein; that on 04.02.2018 when the complainant and his friend were passing by the petitioners' house, all the petitioners herein came near the 2nd respondent and stated that the panchayat elders cannot do anything and threatened the 2nd respondent that they would kill him. It is further alleged that the petitioners herein beat the complainant using their hands, legs and sticks. When the complainant cried for help, he was rescued by some of the neighbours who witnessed the entire offence. Though the complainant has submitted a report before the Narsapur Rural Police Station on 05.02.2018, no action was initiated by the police against the petitioners. Basing on the said aforementioned complaint, the learned Magistrate had directed the concerned police to investigate into the matter, who, after completion of investigation have filed the impugned C.C.No.16 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judicial 2nd Class Magistrate, Narsapur. The present petition is filed seeking to quash the said charge sheet.
4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the facts in the present petition and has further raised a ground that though the alleged offence said to have been taken place on 04.02.2018, the private complaint was filed on 17.02.2018 i.e. after a lapse of 13 days, to which the defacto complainant has not offered any explanation. He further contended that the 1st petitioner has filed a civil suit vide O.S.No.16 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur against the 2 nd respondent herein and others seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction, wherein the court below has passed an interim injunction in favour of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein. He further contended that the 3rd petitioner herein has made a complaint against the 2nd respondent and others in Narsapur Rural Police Station, wherein a charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.227 of 2018 after due investigation, for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 56 read with 34 IPC. As the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were able to obtain ad-interim injunction against the 2nd respondent and others in the aforementioned suit; and in view of the fact that a charge sheet has been filed against the defacto complainant basing on the complaint submitted by the 3rd petitioner herein, with an ulterior motive to take revenge against the petitioners, the present impugned complaint has been filed. As the petitioners are falsely implicated in the complaint and when it is taken at its face value, as it does not disclose any offence against the petitioners, the impugned charge sheet is liable to be quashed.
5. Learned assistant public prosecutor has contended that the allegations leveled against the petitioners would constitute offence punishable under Sections 323, 427, 448, 506 read with 34 of IPC. The petitioners bore grudge against the respondent No.2 and have harassed the complainant in several ways, and the complainant has sustained body pains and mental agony due to illegal acts of the petitioners herein. Considering the same, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and directed the police to investigate into the matter, who after completion of investigation has filed the impugned charge sheet vide C.C.No.16 of 2018. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. 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:
"Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.16 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judicial 2nd Class Magistrate, Narsapur are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?"?"
7. 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 that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also 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 fail to 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.
8. 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:
9. In "R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab1", the Apex Court laid down the following principles:
(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;
(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;
(iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and
(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
10. 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 the offence 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 that event there would be no 1 AIR 1960 SC 866 justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in "Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar2"
11. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand.
12. On a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioners herein, it can be seen that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have filed O.S.No.16 of 2018 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property in R.S.No.631/17 and new R.S.No.17-B for an extent of 0- 12 cents and in R.S.No.17-C for an extent of Ac.0-09 cents, in total for an extent of Acs.0-21 cents out of the total extent of Acs.1-02 cents. In the said O.S.No.16 of 2018, the learned Magistrate has passed the following order:
"That the Respondents 1 to 3 and their men be and are hereby restrained by way on Ad-interim injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the plaint schedule property till 09.02.2018."
13. It is also the case of the petitioners that the 3rd petitioner has filed a complaint against the 2nd respondent and others before the Narsapur Rural Police Station, wherein, after due investigation a charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 56 read with 34 of IPC, which was numbered as C.C.No.227 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur, wherein the 2nd respondent herein was arrayed as accused No.3. After due enquiry, the court below has acquitted the 2nd respondent and other accused from the said charges. It can be seen that the 2nd respondent herein has filed the impugned complaint on 17.02.2018 which is after a lapse of 13 days from the date of the alleged offence i.e. from 04.02.2018. It appears that the complaint, basing on which the impugned charge sheet vide C.C.No.16 of 2018 was numbered, as a counter blast boring grudge against the petitioners herein for obtaining ad-interim injunction in O.S.No.16 of 2018 and in view of the fact that a charge sheet has been filed 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 against the defacto complainant basing on the complaint given by the 3rd petitioner herein.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court, time and again has recorded that there is an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement in the civil dispute. In the case of G. Sagar Suri and Another V. State of U.P. and others i, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. Even in the present case, it appears that the 2nd respondent has filed the present private complaint in order to settle the civil disputes raised by the petitioners herein and to pressurize the petitioners herein. As continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners may amount to the abuse of the process of the court and as the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice, this Court feels that the charge sheet in C.C.No.16 of 2018 on the file of Special Judicial 2nd Class Magistrate, Narsapur is liable to be quashed.
15. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.16 of 2018 on the file of Special Judicial 2nd Class Magistrate, Narsapur are hereby quashed.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 17.09.2024 Gss i (2000) 2 SCC 636: 2000 INSC 34