Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kallam Ramanji Reddy, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 2 April, 2024
APHC010017542020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 314/2020
Between:
Kallam Ramanji Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
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.2, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in Crime No.243 of 2019 on the file of Veldurthy Police Station, Guntur District registered for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 354A, 354D, 376 read with 511 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code2. 1 for short 'Cr.P.C' 2 for short 'IPC' 2
2. The de facto complainant filed the present complaint alleging that she is a resident of Sirigiripadu Village, Veldurthy Mandal and ekes out livelihood by doing coolie works.
ii) At about 7 years ago, Accused No.1 and the husband of de facto complainant together took Ac.4.00 cents of land on lease from Ramavath Balu Naik and used to do cultivation together.
iii) Accused No.1 used to visit the house of de facto complainant and having an evil eye on the de facto complainant to fulfill his lust, Accused No.1 tried to move closely with her and asked her to fulfill his desire, which was bluntly refused by the de facto complainant.
iv) On coming to know about the same through the de facto complainant, her husband admonished Accused No.1 and since then, the husband of the de facto complainant started avoiding Accused No.1 and took Ac.1.00 cents of land from One Jevisetty Venkateswarlu.
v) Accused No.1 used to demand the de facto complainant for his sexual desire and the de facto complainant used to deny the same.
vi) The husband of the de facto complainant warned Accused No.1 stating that he would bring the matter to the notice of his elders, if Accused No.1 continues his indecent acts with the de facto complainant.
vii) While so, Accused No.1 informed about the issue to his close friends i.e., Accused Nos.2 and 3 and they assured him that they would stand behind him if he faces any difficult situation and they abetted Accused No.1 to do something with the de facto complainant.
3
viii) With the support and abetment of Accused Nos.2 and 3, Accused No.1 pounced upon the house of the de facto complainant, quarreled with her and created panic with their rude acts.
ix) While so, on 04.12.2019 at about 15.30 hours, Accused No.1 with an intent to kill the de facto complainant, armed with an axe went to her field, pressurized her to come with him seeking sexual favour and when she denied, he tried to exploit her sexually using criminal force. Accused No.1 hacked the de facto complainant with an axe with an intent to kill her and when she kept her left hand, her left ring finger got cut. When Accused No.1 again hacked on the head of the de facto complainant, she fell in prostrate condition. He again hacked on her right buttock and between the shoulders and caused bleeding injuries.
x) Based on the report lodged by the de facto complainant, initially the present crime was registered for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 354A and 354D IPC. After due investigation and recording the statements of the witnesses, Sections 376 read with 511 and 109 IPC were also added.
3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said case, Petitioner/Accused No.1 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him on the following grounds:
(i) The Petitioner has not committed any offence much less the alleged offences.
(ii) Nowhere in the complaint given by the de facto complainant it is stated about the involvement of the Petitioner in the alleged crime. 4
(iii) Based on the statement of Accused No.1, the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.
(iv) The statements of the witnesses do not disclose the involvement of the Petitioner in the alleged crime. Hence, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law and prayed to quash the same.
Arguments Advanced at the Bar
4. Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.2 would submit that the F.I.R does not disclose the name of the Petitioner. There is no reference of Accused No.2 in the complaint also. In Section 161 Cr.P.C statements recorded by the Police, there is a reference that Accused Nos.2 and 3 supported Accused No.1, but the said allegations are not relating to the present incident. No prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner and the Petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case based on the bald and omnibus allegations. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.2.
6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecution would submit that the Petitioner is involved in several cases. The remand report clearly discloses the allegations against the Petitioner as to the abetment and his assurance to Accused No.1 to commit the offence alleged. There are no tenable grounds to 5 quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused no.2 at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
Point for Determination
7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:
Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in Crime No.243 of 2019 on the file of Veldurthy Police Station, Guntur District registered for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 354A, 354D, 376 read with 511 and 109 IPC?
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. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of 6 Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others3 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 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 3 AIR 1992 SC 604 7 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)
10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner/ Accused No.2 that there is no reference of the Petitioner either in the Complaint or in the FIR. Though the Petitioner has not directly involved in the alleged incident, perusal of the remand report would clearly show that due to the assurance and abetment of Accused Nos.2 and 3, Accused No.1 alleged to have committed the said offence. As such, Sections 511 and 109 IPC have been added, based on the said allegations. None of the guidelines attracted to the present case. As there are factual aspects with regard to the involvement of the Petitioner/Accused No.2, to be decided during investigation, the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.2, at this stage, cannot be quashed.
8
11. While exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, it is not permissible to act a trial Court. Quashing of a criminal complaint must be done only in the cases where the Court is satisfied that the uncontroverted allegations do not prima facie attract the offences alleged. In the instant case, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there are absolutely no valid legal grounds emanating from the record warranting interference of this Court by exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the FIR.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 02.04.2024 Dinesh 9 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.314 of 2020 Dt.02.04.2024 Dinesh