1 APHC010134352020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1722/2020 Between: Devavarapu Krishna Arjuna Rao, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. RAM BABU DEVAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. RAVI KUMAR PONAKAMPALLI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.60 of 2020, dated 29.02.2020 of Tuni Rural Police Station, East Godavari District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 384 read with 120(b) IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent herein filed a report with the Station House Officer, Tuni Rural, East Godavari District alleging that during his inspection, as Panchayat Secretary of S.Annavaram Village of Tuni Mandal he observed that constructions were going on in three plots, in respect of which prohibition for grant of layout is in operation and upon questioning the respective owners they furnished the approvals allegedly issued by the authorities of GUDA and on verification they were found the forged document with forged digital signatures. On enquiry, the three house owners revealed that one Papayya Sastri/Accused No.1 introduced him as GUDA Engineer and also introduced one Chaganti Srinivasu/Accused No.2 as staff member of GUDA office and collected huge amounts from them for issuing approvals. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.60 of 2020 has been registered on the file of Tuni Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 of IPC and investigation has been taken up. On 19.03.2020, the police arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2 and based on the confession statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 that they have colluded with accused No.3 and hatched a plan and cheated the needy persons by preparing and submitting forged building approvals. Basing on the said 3 confessional statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 the police arrayed the petitioner here as accused No.3 in the present crime and added Section 120(b) of IPC to the Sections of law by filing a memo seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 filed the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are against accused Nos.1 and 2 only. The petitioner/accused No.3 is no way concerned with accused Nos.1 and 2 and he is not involved in this crime. The police without verifying about the incident and involvement of the petitioner falsely implicated him in this crime only to harass the petitioner. The petitioner neither created any documents nor cheated any one. The petitioner is innocent and not at all connected to the alleged offence. The Tuni Rural police without conducting proper investigation filed memo before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tuni adding the petitioner as accused No.3 and prays to allow the petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent contended that the alleged acts of the petitioner are sufficient to conclude that the petitioner committed offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 384 read with 120(b) IPC. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor too concurred with the submission made by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 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 in Crime No.60 of 2020 of Tuni Rural Police Station, East Godavari 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 1 AIR 1960 SC 866 6 trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint 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. 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 (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. (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. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 11. As can been seen from the record, admittedly during inspection by the Panchayat Secretary, the house owners did not make any allegations about the petitioner herein/accused No.3. They only spoke about the acts of accused Nos.1 and 2 in collecting amounts from them for issuing approvals, which were found to be forged documents. It is only after arrest of accused Nos.1 and 2 and basing on their confessional statements later the present petitioner/accused No.3 was added in the present crime. Except the confessional statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 there is no other material on record to substantiate the involvement of the petitioner/accused No.3 in the present crime. 12. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 would amounts to abuse of process of law and hence they are liable to be quashed. 8 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused No.3 in Crime No.60 of 2020 on the file of Tuni Rural Police Station, East Godavari District, are hereby quashed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 28.01.2025 KGR