Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Purvi Goswami vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 July, 2020
Author: M. Ganga Rao
Bench: M.Ganga Rao
HONOURABALE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO
Criminal Petition No.2828 of 2020
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A-2 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.523 of 2020 of Pendurthi Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 313, 354C, 325 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Heard Sri Penumaka Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/A-2 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
The police registered a case in Crime No.523 of 2020 of Pendurthi Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 313, 354C, 325 and 506 IPC, on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant, stating that one Nilesh Goswami, who was arrayed A-1, stalked her in face book from 2012 and that in April, 2016 he invited her to discuss regarding blood camp activity, took her to some unknown place near to Military road in his Scorpio in Kutch and raped her and recorded the incident on video and threatened her that he would publicize the same if she moved for report and coerced her and blackmailed her. It is further alleged that when the 2nd respondent asked A-1 to marry her, in the month of January, 2018, A-1 asked her to come to Visakhapatnam and when she came from Ahemedbad, he picked up her at the Railway Station, Visakhapatnam and taken her to his house and made her stay without marrying her and had sexual intercourse forcibly with her continuously and became her pregnant. It is further alleged 2 MGR, J CRL.P.No.2828 of 2020 that when the A-1 taken away amounts lying in the bank account of the 2nd respondent and also gold jewellery worth Rs.1,50,000/- and when the 2nd respondent went to the house of A-1 and informed the same to the petitioner/A-2, both A-1 and the petitioner/A-2 beat her badly in black and blue and broken her right hand finger. Both A-1 and the petitioner beat her severely and threatened to kill her with dire consequences.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the complaint does not constitute any offence, much less the alleged offences against the petitioner, as all the allegations are made only against A-1. He further contends that the allegations of the complaint, if it were taken to be true at their face value, do not prima facie constitute any offences as alleged against the petitioner and that the police registered the crime against the petitioner on the false complaint given by the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant with an intention to cause loss to the petitioner and to harass her. The petitioner is innocent to the alleged offences, and hence, he sought for quashing the FIR against the petitioner.
On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor contends that a reading of the complaint given by the complainant on which the crime was registered clearly discloses the alleged offences under Sections 376, 420, 313, 354C, 325 and 506 IPC and that the petitioner/accused has not made out any case to quash the FIR, and hence, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.
3 MGR, J CRL.P.No.2828 of 2020 Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the material on record, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint does not disclose any offence for which the crime was registered against the petitioner and that she was falsely implicated in the alleged offences, based on the false complaint are untenable.
It is needless to say that the court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in order to quash the criminal proceedings at the initial stage of investigation. The court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry to ascertain the truthfulness, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. It is a settled principle of law that the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate investigation. If the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offence much less the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, then this court can quash the proceedings in order to prevent abuse of process of court thereby to secure the ends of justice. The material available on record is, prima facie, sufficient to investigate into the matter in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajanlal and others1, laid down certain guidelines where inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any court 1 AIR 1992 SC 604 4 MGR, J CRL.P.No.2828 of 2020 or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The guidelines read thus:
(a) 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;
(b) 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;
(c) 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;
(d) 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;
(e) 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;
(f) 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;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide 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.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, this court is of the view that the facts of the present case did not fulfil the criteria laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to exercise the inherent powers of the 5 MGR, J CRL.P.No.2828 of 2020 Court to quash the proceedings at the threshold, and hence, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ M. GANGA RAO, J Date: 24-07-2020 Ksn