Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Peeka Kamalakar Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 April, 2024
APHC010273322020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4292/2020
Between:
Peeka Kamalakar Rao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.145 of 2020 on the file of Repalle Town Police Station, Guntur District, which was registered for the offences 1 For short 'Cr.P.C' 2 punishable under Sections 354D and 509 of Indian Penal Code2, and Section 3 (2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act3.
2. The allegations mentioned in the complaint, in brief, are as follows:
a. Respondent No.3/Complainant is the Superintendent (Traffic) on APSRTC, Repalle Depot. On 16.07.2020 at about 12.30 p.m., while Respondent No.3 was at the control point in the bus stand, Accused No.1, who is the Conductor, came to her. At that time, she was talking with one M.R.Kumar, who is the driver of APSRTC. When she asked Accused No.1 as to the posting of his duty, he replied that he was posted at Lakshmi Talkies and left that place.
b. At about 6.30 p.m., she received a video clip in WhatsApp regarding her conversation with Accused No.1 at the afternoon. c. On enquiry, Respondent No.3 came to know that, while she was talking with Accused No.1, he took the video without her consent and knowledge. The said video was also uploaded in the Workers Group and the same was also sent to other Depots in Guntur Region.Previously also, Accused No.1 behaved indecently with her, threatened and talked with her in filthy language and she also reported the same to DM/RM orally. d. Respondent No.3 belongs to SC Mala community and Accused No.1 belongs to Kamma community. As the video became viral, she suffered a lot mentally. As such, she lodged the present complaint against all the accused, 2 For short 'I.P.C' 3 For short 'the Act' 3 which was registered as a case in Crime No.145 of 2020 for the alleged offences.
Grounds for Quashment:
3. Being aggrieved thereby, Petitioner/Accused No.3 filed the present petition for quashment of the proceedings against him on the following grounds.
a. The case lodged against the Petitioner is motivated, vindictive, capricious and devoid of any reasonable merits. b. Petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him and he was falsely implicated at political influence.
c. Sections charged and the contents of the report have no relevancy and mere ingredients of the Sections do not attract the case on hand. d. No iota of evidence is there to show that the Petitioner either posted or instigated in posting the alleged video.
e. Respondent No.3 neither mentioned nor whispered anything about the involvement of the Petitioner, in her report. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.3. Arguments Advanced at the Bar
4. Heard Sri Jada Sravan Kumar learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Despite service of notice, none appeared for Respondent No.3.
4
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No. 3 in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition, would submit that a false case has been registered against the Petitioner and the Petitioner is the Administrator of the said WhatsApp group. It is alleged that while Respondent No.3 and Accused No.1 were talking to each other, Accused No.1 video graphed the conversation and circulated the video clipping in the WhatsApp Group, for which, Petitioner/Accused No.3 is the Administrator. He would further submit that Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and that there are no allegations against the Petitioner. As such, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. In support of his contention learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others4.
6. Refuting the above contentions, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner. Truthfulness of the said allegations will be revealed during investigation. At this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioner cannot be quashed. There are absolutely no grounds to quash the case against the Petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
Point for Determination
7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows:
4
AIR 1992 SC 604 5 Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 in Crime No.145 of 2020 on the file of Repalle Town Police Station, Guntur District?
Determination by the Court
8. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to 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 reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.
9. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others5 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows;
"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 5 AIR 1992 SC 604 6 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.
(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.
(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 the Code.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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. (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.
103. We 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 in the 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."
(emphasis supplied) 7
10. In the instant case, it is alleged in the complaint that, while Respondent No.3 and Accused No.1 were talking to each other, Accused No.1 videographed the said conversation and uploaded in the WhatsApp group and thereby caused mental agony to her who belongs to Scheduled Caste. As contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, except the bald allegation that Petitioner is the Admin for the WhatsApp group in which the alleged video was uploaded, no substantive material is placed on record to prove the involvement of the Petitioner in the offence under Sections 354D and 509 IPC. Further, perusal of the caste certificate filed by the Petitioner would clearly show that he belongs to SC-Mala. Since both Petitioner and Respondent No.3 belong to the same community i.e., SC-Mala, the offence under Section 3 (2) (va) of the Act cannot be attributed against the Petitioner.
11. As far as the offence under Section 354-D IPC is concerned, it deals with Stalking. The essential ingredients of this Section are that the Petitioner/Accused No.3 should follow Respondent No.3 and contact, or attempt to contact her to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of her disinterest or monitor her use of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication. In the present case, it is not alleged that the Petitioner had committed such acts.
12. In view of the above discussion, the allegations made in the complaint do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Petitioner/Accused No.3. There are no specific allegations against the Petitioner with regard to the commission of the alleged offences. As per the 8 first guideline of Bhajanlal's case (supra), the allegations made in the complaint, even if are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Petitioner/Accused No.3. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner and all the allegations are against Accused No.1. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, it is a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 in the above crime.
13. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.3 in Crime No.145 of 2020 on the file of Repalle Town Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354D and 509 IPC, and Section 3 (2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:22.04.2024 L.R.Copy to be marked Dinesh 9 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.4292 of 2020 Dt.22.04.2024 L.R.Copy to be marked Dinesh 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4292 of 2020 Between:
1. PEEKA KAMALAKAR RAO, S/O. SUDARSANAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, CASTE SCHEDULED CASTE R/O. D.NO.20-52A, CHAMPADU, VEMURU, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -
522261.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.,AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. SHO, REPALLE TOWN POLICE STATION, GUNTUR DIST.
3. CHINTA SRI LAKSHMI, W/O. BUSSA RAMBABU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TRAFFIC SUPERINTENDENT APSRTC, REPALLE DEPOT, R/O. OLERU VILLAGE, BHATTIPROLU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 22.04.2024 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Her Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 11 * THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA + CRIMINAL PETITION No.4292 of 2020 % 22.04.2024 Between:
1. PEEKA KAMALAKAR RAO, S/O. SUDARSANAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, CASTE SCHEDULED CASTE R/O. D.NO.20-52A, CHAMPADU, VEMURU, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -
522261.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.,AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. SHO, REPALLE TOWN POLICE STATION, GUNTUR DIST.
3. CHINTA SRI LAKSHMI, W/O. BUSSA RAMBABU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TRAFFIC SUPERINTENDENT APSRTC, REPALLE DEPOT, R/O. OLERU VILLAGE, BHATTIPROLU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri Jada Sravan Kumar ^ Counsel for Respondents : Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 < Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
AIR 1992 SC 604 This Court made the following: