1 APHC010125072020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1620/2020 Between: Vallabhaneni Krishna Prasad Chowdary ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR.No.81 of 2020 of Bheemunipatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 307, 379 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”). 2. The petitioner herein is the accused No.1. Respondent No.2 herein is the de-facto complainant. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint alleging that he was working as clerk under Kakara Gangaram Chowdary and is looking after his land admeasuring Ac.1.35 cents in Sy.No.40/1 in Kothavalasa Village by erecting fencing and gate. While so, on 09.03.2020, at about 11.00 a.m., the petitioner/A1 along with 20 others trespassed into the land, tried to kill him, beat him, damaged the compound wall, the cement polls and stolen away the articles and threatened him with dire consequences. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.81 of 2020, was registered against the petitioner. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. He submits that the subject matter property is purely a civil in nature and in order to gain the subject property wrongfully, the employer of the 2nd respondent, got registered the present FIR through his employee/2nd respondent herein. Originally, one Sri Appanna and his family 3 members owned a land to an extent of Ac.3.80 cents in Sy.No.40/1 in Kothavalasa Village, Jayanthi Agraharam Gram Panchayat, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and executed a Registered General Power of Attorney dated 20.09.1995, bearing Document No.91/1995, in favour of M/s. Kiran Real Estates and Constructions Visakhapatnam, rep. by its managing partner Vallabhaneni Krishna Prasad Chowdary (petitioner herein) to make transactions over the said land. Accordingly, the firm sold the plots to various individuals through registered documents. It is further submitted that one Sri Suri Babu (A5 in FIR.No.81/2020), who is working as Supervisor in the said firm, lodged a report against one Sri Kakara Gangaram Chowdary (the employer of the 2nd respondent herein), his family members and his followers for trespassing into the said land, damaging the property and threatening him with dire consequences. While things stood thus, on 11.03.2020, the de-facto complainant by raising false allegations lodged a complaint against the petitioner/A1. The employer of the 2nd respondent herein, with an evil intention to grab the subject land, filed the present FIR by raising all vague allegations. Hence, prays to allow the petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the alleged acts of the petitioner/A1 is sufficient to conclude that the petitioner/A1 committed offence punishable under Sections 447, 427, 307, 379 read with 34 of I.P.C. and requested to dismiss the petition. 4 6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the proceedings against the petitioner/A1 in FIR.No.81 of 2020 of Bheemunipatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 7. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 5 8. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows: In “R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab1”, the Apex Court laid down the following principles: (i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice; (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 9. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint 1 AIR 1960 SC 866 6 has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar2” 10. In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3” the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: (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 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. 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 (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. 11. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 12. The main allegation made in the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant is that, he is working as clerk under Kakara Gangaram Chowdary and is looking after his employer’s land admeasuring Ac.1.35 cents in Sy.No.40/1 in Kothavalasa Village by erecting fencing and gate. On 09.03.2020, the petitioner/A1 and one other accused and 20 others trespassed into the land and tried to kill him, damaged the compound wall and stolen away the articles. Hence, report came to be lodged against the petitioner/A1. 13. A perusal of the contents of the complaint made by the de-facto complainant would show that the present crime is a counterblast to the crime No.218 of 2017, dated 08.08.2017 filed by the A5. To wreck vengeance against the petitioner/A1, the present complaint has been filed. The dispute herein appears to be civil in nature in respect of certain land and only to settle the issue and to pressurise the dispute, the present crime has been filed. Even if the entire allegations made in the complaint are taken to be true, at 8 their face value, they did not substitute any offence much less than the alleged offences against the petitioner/A1. Therefore, the criminal proceedings were maliciously initiated with a motive to settle the civil dispute by way of criminal proceedings. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court, time and again has recorded that there is an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement in the civil dispute. In the case of G. SagarSuri and Another V. State of U.P. and others4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. Even in the present case, it appears that the 2nd respondent has filed a complaint in order to settle the civil disputes raised by the petitioner/A1 herein and to pressurize the petitioner herein. As continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/A1 may amount to the abuse of the process of the court and as the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice, this Court feels that the Crime No.81 of 2020 on the file of Bheemunipatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam is liable to be quashed. 15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/A1 would amount to abuse of process of Court. Hence, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused deserve to be allowed. 4 (2000) 2 SCC 636: 2000 INSC 34 9 16. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/A1 in Crime No.81 of 2020 on the file of Bheemunipatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam District is hereby set aside. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 06.01.2025 ANS 10 204 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1620/2020 Date: 06.01.2025 ANS 11