Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yenikekaluva Sudarshan Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 October, 2024
APHC010133742022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2150/2022
Between:
YENIKEKALUVA SUDARSHAN REDDY, S/O. VASANTHA REDDY, 44Y,
R/O. THIPPE PALLI, DHARMAVARAM MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. THROUGH PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR AT HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI.
2. KAYALA ANJINEYULU, S/O. LATE LINGAPPA, 62Y, R/O. THUMMALA
VILLAGE, DAHRMAVARAM MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. N RANGA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. BANDI SRIHARI
2. 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, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in FIR No.23 of 2022 on the file of Dharmavaram Rural Police Station, Ananthapuram District, which was registered for the offence under 1 for short 'Cr.P.C' 2 Sections 447, 427 and 295 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Section 3(1) (r) (s) (g) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 20153.
2. The allegations mentioned in the complaint, in brief, are as follows:
(a) Respondent No.2 is the resident of Thummala Village, Dharmavaram Mandal and has been working as a Priest in Sri Veera Narayana Swamy temple in his Village. He has land of an extent of Ac.1.36 cents in Sy.No.67-3 in his Village. He started constructing a temple for Goddess Gangamma Thalli in his land and the Idol of the Goddess was not installed.
(b) That being so, on 09.02.2022 at about 10.40 p.m., some unknown offenders trespassed into his land and demolished the room which was constructed for installation of the idol of Goddess Gangamma Thalli with JCB and caused loss Rs.3,50,000/- to Respondent No.2.
(c) As such, Respondent No.2 gave a complaint to the Police, based on which, the present crime has been registered initially for the offence under Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 IPC and subsequently it was altered to Sections 447, 427 and 295 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(1) (r) (s) (g) of SCST Act.
(d) Aggrieved thereby, Petitioner/Accused No.2 filed the present seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in the above crime.
2 for short 'IPC' 3 for short 'SCST Act' 3 Arguments Advanced at the Bar
3. Heard Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Bandi Srihari, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 conceded to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel Respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused would submit that the subject property was purchased by the wife of the Petitioner under a Registered Sale Deed dated 03.02.2022 and the alleged incident occurred on 09.02.2022. Learned counsel would further submit that Respondent No.2 with a view to occupy the said property, lodged a false complaint against the Petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner was falsely implicated due to the political pressures. Learned counsel would further submit that there is not even a single allegation against the Petitioner with regard to the commission of offence under SCST Act. Learned counsel would submit that Section 295 IPC also does not apply to the present set of facts as the idol of the Goddess was not installed at the time of the alleged offence. Learned counsel would finally submit that there no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner to attract the alleged offence and hence, continuation of proceedings against him is an abuse of process of law.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that the subject land belongs to Respondent No.2 and there are factual aspects to be decided during investigation and that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 4 Point for Determination
6. 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 the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in FIR No.23 of 2022 on the file of Dharmavaram Rural Police Station, Ananthapuram District?
Determination by the Court
7. 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.
8. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others4 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At Paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows;
4 AIR 1992 SC 604 5 "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 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.6
(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)
9. It is alleged against the Petitioner that he trespassed into the land of Respondent No.2 and demolished the room which was constructed for installation of the idol of Goddess Gangamma Thalli with JCB and caused loss Rs.3,50,000/- to him. Whereas, it is the contention of the Petitioner that the subject property was purchased by his wife under a Registered Sale Deed dated 03.02.2022 and the alleged incident occurred on 09.02.2022 and the present false complaint was lodged against the Petitioner with a view to occupy the said property. A perusal of the copy of the Registered Sale Deed dated 03.02.2022 would disclose that the subject property was purchased by the wife of the Petitioner from one Amalladinee Nagendra. As such, the question of criminal trespass into the subject property, which is not in the possession of Respondent No.2 does not arise.
10. The Petitioner was also charged for the offence under Section 295 IPC. For better understanding Section 295 IPC is extracted hereunder:
"295. Injuring or defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion of any class.--7
Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
11. A juxtaposing perusal of the above Section of Law and the averments of the complaint would clearly show that the idol of Goddess Gangamma Thalli was not installed at the time of the alleged incident. As such, it cannot be said that the said place is a place of worship. It cannot be said that the Petitioner either destroyed or damaged or defiled the place of worship or any object held sacred by any class of persons with an intention of insulting the religion of any class of persons. In such circumstances it can be said that no prima facie offence is made out against the Petitioner for the offence under Section 295 IPC.
12. So far as the offence under Section 3(1) (r) (s) (g) of SCST Act, there is no single averment in the complaint given by Respondent No.2 about the wrongful dispossession of Respondent No.2, who belongs to ST community from his land by the Petitioner/Accused. Further, no material has been placed by Respondent No.2 to prove his right, title or possession over the subject property. On the other hand, the Petitioner is claiming right over the said property by virtue of a Registered Sale Deed dated 03.02.2022.
13. In the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the first guideline in Bhajanlal's case (supra), this Court is of the view that the allegations made in the complaint given by Respondent No.2 do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Petitioner/ Accused. 8 Therefore, this Court is of the view that, as the very ingredients of the offending Sections are not attracted against the Petitioner/Accused, continuation of proceedings against him is an abuse of process of law and hence, the same are liable to be quashed.
14. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused in FIR No.23 of 2022 on the file of Dharmavaram Rural Police Station, Ananthapuram District, registered for the offence under Sections 447, 427 and 295 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(1) (r) (s) (g) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:14.10.2024 Dinesh 9 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.2150 of 2022 Dt.14.10.2024 Dinesh