APHC010137442022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2315/2022 Between: BOLLINENI NITHIN CHOWDARY, S/O.SRI B.RAVI KUMAR, AGED 19 YEARS, OCC.ENGINEERING II YEAR, R/O.FLAT NO.701, H-BLOCK, ADITYA IMPERIAL HEIGHTS HAFEEZPET, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, STATION HOUSE OFFICER PRATHIPADU POLICE STATION GUNTUR URBAN, GUNTUR DISTRICT REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. AT AMARAVATHI 2. M VEERANARAYANA CHAIRPERSON, PACS, PRATHIPADU, GUNTUR URBAN GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SUDHAKARA RAO AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. 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 No.2, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in Crime No.40 of 2022 on the file of Prathipadu 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 Police Station, Guntur Urban for the offences under Sections 403 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602. 2. Heard Sri Sudhakara Rao Ambati, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. Though notice was sent to Respondent No.2, the same was returned. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner herein is the son of Accused No.1. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner has been studying Engineering in Hyderabad. It is submitted that Accused No.1, who is the father of the Petitioner lodged a complaint which was registered as a case in Crime No.36 of 2022 regarding the loans obtained by some persons by producing false documents and as a counterblast to the said case, the present case has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations. Learned counsel would further submit that, there are no specific allegations against the Petitioner and he has nothing to do with the alleged offences. It is submitted that no property is existing in the name of the Petitioner and the Petitioner was minor at the relevant time. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner is a student and his life is spoiled because of registration of the present crime against him. Learned counsel would submit that there are no tenable grounds to continue the proceedings against the Petitioner. Hence, prayed for quashment of the same. 2 for short ‘IPC’ 3 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations leveled against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 for the commission of the alleged offence. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be decided during investigation. At this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioner cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss 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.2 in Crime No.40 of 2022 on the file of Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur Urban? 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 trial court, 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. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. 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 Cr.P.C. 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. 3 AIR 1992 SC 604 5 (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. (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 complaint has been filed by Respondent No.2 on 04.03.2022 alleging that, Accused No.1, who is the father of the Petitioner/Accused No.2, while working as Branch Manager in G.D.C.C.Bank, Prathipadu Branch, obtained loans in the names of his relatives and friends and thereafter diverted the said amounts into the accounts of his wife and son i.e., Petitioner/Accused No.2. Based on the said complaint, the present case 6 has been registered for the offences under Sections 403 and 420 IPC. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed seeking quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.2. 9. A bare perusal of the material placed on record would disclose that, on 26.02.2022, Accused No.1 herein lodged a complaint alleging that, while he was working as Branch Manager of GDCC Bank, Prathipadu Branch, at request of his friend namely Vempalli Nagaraju, he recommended for sanction of loans to him and his friends in 7 PACS Branches. However, at the time of sanction of loans, they found that said Vempalli Nagaraju and others having colluded with each other, with a dishonest intention to cheat the Bank, created fake Aadhar Cards, Pattadar Passbooks, Title Deeds and 1-B Adangals and obtained loans through 51 ryots. Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.36 of 2022 against said Nagaraju and others. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, as a counterblast to the said case, the present case has been filed. However, the same has to be revealed during investigation. 10. So far as the case against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is concerned, it is alleged that Accused No.1 fraudulently obtained loans and with the said amount purchased properties in the names of his wife and son. But, no iota of evidence has been placed before this Court to establish the purchase of properties in the name of the Petitioner. Further, it is the contended that the wife of Accused No.1 was working in U.S and because of the present case, her VISA was not extended. Further, as seen from the date of birth certificate 7 of the Petitioner/Accused No.2 which is placed on record, it is clear that he was born on 31.12.2002 and hence, it can be held that he was 16 years old by the time of alleged offence. A bare perusal of the allegations leveled against the Petitioner, would clearly go to show that no prima facie case is made out against him for the offences alleged. 11. As per the 1st guideline of Bhajanlal’s case, even if the allegations mentioned in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Petitioner/Accused No.2. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in Crime No.40 of 2022 on the file of Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur Urban for the offences under Sections 403 and 420 IPC. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:07.01.2025 Dinesh 8 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.2315 of 2022 Dt.07.01.2025 Dinesh