APHC010165992021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2657/2021 Between: Landa Shivaji and Others The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P L NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2657/2021 Landa Shivaji and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): P L NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): PROSECUTOR (AP) [3333] THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) 2 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2657/2021 The Court made the following Order: The present Criminal petition is filed challenging the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.2709 of 2020 pending on the file of 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vishakapatnam in Cr.No.18 of 2020 on the file of Kancharapalem Police Station for the offence punishable under section 341, 342, 354(D), 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC. 02. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 and the 2nd respondent herein is the de-facto complainant. 03. It is alleged that the de-facto complainant is residing at her parents’ house in Kailasapuram. Her marriage took place about ten years ago and unable to bear the harassment made by her husband, she took divorce from her husband in the year 2015. During her deserted life, one Landa Rajasekhar showed compassion and love towards her and took her responsibility as well as her daughter. She started live-in-relationship with the said Rajasekhar who made her believe that he loved her and promised to marry her after convincing his family members. When the complainant came to know about the marriage proposal of 3 Landa Rajasekhar with another woman, she asked about her marriage and then he replied that he would secretly maintain his relationship with her. Then she informed to his parents as well as to the women with whom the marriage of Rajasekhar is going to be performed and then his marriage proposal was cancelled. Further, he did not agree to marry the complainant. On 15.04.2019, the said Rajasekhar and his family members invited the complainant to their house for a discussion about the issue and at about 8.00 a.m., she went to their house, at that time the said Rajaskehar and his parents Krishnamurthy, Neelima along with one Shivaji who is the brother of Rajasekhar and one Ajay who is the brother-in-law of Rajasekhar are forced to withdraw her marriage proposal and forced to sign on empty white papers. Then, she lodged a complaint to the police which was registered in Crime No.18 of 2019 on the file of Muvvalavanialem Police Station, Viskahapatnam City for the offence punishable under Section 376, 417, 420, 506 IPC and then said Rajasekhar was arrested and send to Judicial Remand. From the date of release on bail, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were sending whatsapp messages from various numbers and used to harass her and threatened her to withdraw the case. Meanwhile, the petitioners 4 are used to stalk the complainant with intent to outrage her modesty and threatened her with dire consequences. Basing on the report given by the complainant, a case in Cr.No.189 of 2019 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 341, 342, 354(D), 509 and 506 r/w 34 IPC on the file of Kancharapalem Police Station. After completion of investigation, the police lodged charge-sheet which was numbered as C.C.No.2709 of 2020. Challenging the same, the present criminal petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences with which they are charged and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the alleged crime with false, bald, vague and omnibus allegations and no specific allegations administrated against the petitioners and the averments in the police report and charge-sheet are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. The initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners are nothing but an abuse 5 of process of Court and accordingly, in order to wreck vengeance against the petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. He further submits that the brother of the 1st petitioner namely Landa Rajasekhar was infact in live-in- relationship with the de-facto complainant since four years and when he rejected to marry her, the 2nd respondent herein made a complaint against the family members of the Landa Rajasekhar including the petitioners herein. Infact, the complainant lodged a complaint against one Landa Rajasekhar, which was registered as Crime No.189 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 376, 417, 420, 506 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the Land Rajasekhar filed Criminal Petition No.3842 of 2020 seeking to quash all proceedings and accordingly sought for quashing of present proceedings. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, while reiterating the contents of the charge-sheet, submits that there are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners and the alleged offences are serious and grievous in nature, the truth or otherwise of which will be determined by the competent criminal court in a full-fledged trial and this court, in exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C, cannot determine the 6 truthfulness of the allegations. Since the contention of the petitioners is bereft of any specific material, there are no valid grounds to quash the proceedings and he prays to dismissal of the criminal petition. 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 in C.C.No.2709 of 2020 on the file of learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vishakapatnam, is liable to be quashed against the petitioner by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 7. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 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 7 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. 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; 1 AIR 1960 SC 866 8 (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. 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 has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the 9 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” 9. In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 3” 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. 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 10 (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. 10. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 11. It is the contention of the petitioners that the complainant went to the house of A.1 i.e., on 15.04.2019 for discussing regarding her marriage with A.1. A.1 and the petitioners have forced the respondent No.2 to sign on empty white papers in order to withdraw the case against A.1 in Cr.No.189 of 2019 on the file of Muvvalavanipalem Police Station. 12. A thorough reading of the contents of the charge-sheet and the material on record would show that except making bald and baseless allegations against the petitioners, no details are given 11 as to on what date, on which day and at what time they have harassed the complainant. Except the allegation that the petitioners have refused to perform the marriage of the de-facto complainant with A.1 and have forced to sign on white paper in order to withdraw the case against A.1, there is no specific allegation which attracts Section 341, 342, 354(D), 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC. Even in the 161 Cr.P.C statements also the complainant did not disclose about the particulars as to when and where they used to harass the complainant. In the absence of substantive material, the accusation leveled against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of Court, and hence, this Court is of the view that, it is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 in C.C.No.2709 of 2020 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, are hereby quashed. 12 Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 17.02.2025 KKV 13 258 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2657/2021 Date: 17.02.2025 KKV