APHC010124932022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2160 of 2022 Between: P. Naveen Kumar Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of AP and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. T NAGARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed, by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of the Proceedings against him in CC No.708 of 2021 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, for the offence punishable under Section 505(1)(b) IPC. 2. Heard Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State. Perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that basing on the report given by respondent No.2, Police registered a case in Crime No.110 of 2020 of Tirupathi East Police Station, Tirupathi Urban against the 1. For short ‘the Code’ 2 Petitioner/Accused. After due investigation, Police filed charge sheet against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 505(1)(b) IPC and Learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file and numbered as CC No.708 of 2021 and has taken cognizance of the very same offence and issued summons to the accused without there being any sanction from the State Government in the light of the bar under Section 196(1) of the Cr.P.C. Further, on the face of the allegations in the Charge Sheet, prima facie no offence is made out against the Petitioner. Learned counsel would finally submit that continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is sheer abuse of process of law and prays for quashment of the case against him. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriated orders. 5. A bare perusal of Section 482 of the Code 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 of the Code 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. 3 6. The ambit of powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are enunciated in a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts. While sitting in the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court should be convinced that the allowing criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of the court or the ends of justice require the proceedings ought to be quashed. No doubt, this Court has ample powers under Section 482 which are to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice. 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. Specific circumstances warranting invocation of powers under Section 482 have been strongly emphasized in a catena of decisions. To cite a few, State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal2 at paras 102 and 103, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra3 at para 57. 7. Keeping in mind, the guiding factors enunciated supra, present case has to be scrutinized. 8. Now it is relevant to extract Section 505(1)(b) IPC and it reads thus: Section 505(1)(b) IPC: (b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquillity. 9. For ready reference, Section 196 Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under: 2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 3 (2020) 10 SCC 118 4 Section 196 Cr.P.C. (1) No Court shall take cognizance of – (a) any offence punishable under Chapter VI or under section 153-A, [section 295-A or sub-section (1) of section 505] [Substituted by Act 63 of 1980, Section 3, for "Section 153-B, Section 295-A or Section 505" (w.e.f. 23.9.1980).] of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, or (c) any such abetment, as is described in section 108-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government. [(1-A) No Court shall take cognizance of – (a)any offence punishable under section 153-B or sub-section (2) or sub- section (3) of section 505 of the Indian Penal Code, or (b)a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate.] 10. As per the above legal Position, Section 505(1)(b) Cr.P.C. is protected with a sanction of the State Government. Admittedly, no sanction was obtained from the State Government before taking cognizance of the offence. Learned Magistrate has lost sight of this aspect and has taken cognizance for the said offence in a routine manner. 11. In the light of the aforementioned premises, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is sheer abuse of process of law and it is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the Proceedings against the Petitioner. 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the Proceedings in CC No.708 of 2021 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, against the Petitioner/Accused are hereby quashed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No. 2160 of 2022 29.01.2025 Mjl /*