APHC010128142022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2199/2022 Between: Dr.PITHANI ANNAVARAM, S/O.SESHAIAH(LATE), 51 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.1-155/1, BENNEGARU CHURCH, S.ATCHUTAPURAM, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGHCOURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NELAPADU, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. PONDHURI SURESH KUMAR, S/O.BHASKARA RAO, 39 YEARS, R/O.FLAT 301, BRAMARAMBHIKA NILAYAK, B.K.GUDA ROAD, S.R.NAGAR, HYDEARABAD. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. G ELISHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.996 of 2021 on the file of Penamaluru 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 Police Station, Vijayawada City, for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602. 2. Heard Sri G.Elisha, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. Notice sent to Respondent No.2 was returned as refused. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, except one or two flats, the works in all the flats were finished and the same were handed over to the purchasers who have paid the amounts. So far as Flat No.505 is concerned, there are some disputes between the Petitioner and the purchaser of the said flat namely Pilli Durga Surya Sandeep, who is the friend of the Respondent No.2 and in view of the same, the Petitioner field O.S.No.269 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for recovery of amount. Learned counsel would submit that the present complaint has been lodged at the instigation of said Sandeep in order to avoid payment to the Petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that, the Petitioner had handed over the flat of Respondent No.2 long back and the Petitioner is no way concerned with the interior designing work. Learned counsel would finally submit that no offence has been committed by the Petitioner as alleged by Respondent No.2, as such, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner. 2 for short ‘I.P.C.’ 3 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner which would attract the alleged offence and as such, this Court cannot conduct mini trial, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and prays for dismissal of the petition. Point for Determination 5. 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 No.1 in Crime No.996 of 2021 on the file of Penamaluru Police Station, Vijayawada City? Determination by the Court 6. 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. 4 7. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of 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 reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 3 AIR 1992 SC 604 5 (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) 8. The present crime has been registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 alleging that, Respondent No.2 has purchased Flat No.501 in Satya Pride Apartment, Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, which was constructed by the Petitioner herein. However, the Petitioner did not handover the flat to him. When Respondent No.2 visited the said flat, he found that the construction work was not properly done and all the flats have wall cracks and water leakage. When he questioned the Petitioner about the same, he demanded to pay more money, otherwise, he would lock the flat. While so, on 29.10.2021 at about 10.00 a.m., the Petitioner along with the other Accused entered into my flat illegally, threatened the workers, who were working in my flat and destroyed the material. 9. Admittedly, Respondent No.2 is the owner of his flat and the same is not denied by the Petitioner. Though it is the contention of the Petitioner that 6 in view of the disputes with one Sandeep, who is the friend of Respondent No.2 and filing of suit in O.S.No.269 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for recovery of amount by the Petitioner against said Sandeep, the present complaint has been lodged, is not a ground to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner. In the present case, there are specific allegations against the Petitioner in the commission of alleged offence and the same have to be decided during the course of trial. Since there are factual aspects to be decided during evidence before the trial Court, at this stage, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial while deciding the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The case is not falling under any of the guidelines mentioned in Bhajanlal’s case (supra). It is a matter of trial for disclosing the truth or otherwise of the allegations leveled against the Petitioner and there are no merits for quashment of the proceedings against him and hence, the petition deserves dismissal. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:09.01.2025 Dinesh 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.2199 of 2022 Dated:09.01.2025 Dinesh