IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI TUESDAY. THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3188 OF 2022 BETWEEN:- 1. Venkata Ramana Gopavarapu, S/o. Lakshmaiah, Aged 32 years, Occ.. Police Constable, R/o. D.No.5-4, Nallarallapalli.CV Palle Chittor District. 2. Lakshmaiah Gopavarapu, S/o. Gurappa, Aged 75 years, R/o D No 5-2 Nallarallapalli, CV Palle.Chittor District. 3. Ranemma Gopavarapu, W/o. Lakshmaiah, Aged 60 years, R/o. D.No 5-4, Nallarallapalli, CV Palle.Chittor District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED N0.1 TO 3 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. Savithri Kothapalli, W/o. Subbarayudu, Aged 53 years,R/o. Kodur, YSR Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANTS of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the entire petitioners in C.C.No.58 of 2020 Class. Railway Kodur, YSR Kadapa District Petition under Section 482 proceedings against the on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First I-.. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in CC No.58 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class, Railway Kodur, YSR Kadapa District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of SRI. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of SRI.M.S.P. KAMARAJU, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: % APHC010195602022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTHDAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3188/2022 Between: 1.VENKATA RAMANA GOPAVARAPU, S/0. LAKSHMAIAH, AGED 32 YEARS, OCC.POLICE CONSTABLE, R/0. D.NO. 5-4, NALLARALLAPALLI,CVPALLE, CHITTOR DISTRICT. 2. LAKSHMAIAH GOPAVARAPU, S/0. GURAPPA, AGED 75 YEARS, R/0. D.NO. 5-2, NALLARALLAPALLI, CV PALLE,CHITTOR DISTRICT. 3.RANEMMA GOPAVARAPU, W/0. LAKSHMAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, R/0. D.NO. 5-4, NALLARALLAPALLI, CV PALLE,CHITTOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, AMARAVATI. 2.SAVITHRI KOTHAPALLI, W/0. SUBBARAYUDU, AGED 53 YEARS,R/0. KODUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petltioner/accused(S): 1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.M S P KAMARAJU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following; 2 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.58 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur for the offence under Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860^. 2. Heard Sri Ramakrishna Akurathi, learned counsel for the Petitioners Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State and Sri M.S.P.Kamaraju, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that Respondent No.2, who is the mother-in-law of Petitioner/Accused No.1 foisted a false case after the demise of her daughter, who is the wife of the Petitioner/Accused No.1. Learned counsel would further submit that, the wife of Petitioner/Accused No.1 died during delivery of the 2"“^ child and the Petitioner/Accused No.1 led a happy marital life with his wife. Learned counsel would further submit that as a counterblast to the complaint lodged by the Petitioner/Accu sed No.1 against Respondent No.2 herein and her husband, the present case has been lodged against the Petitioners. Learned counsel would further submit that the St child of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 and the deceased daughter of Respondent No.2 is in the care and custody of the Petitioners and they have been looking after the welfare of the child. Learned counsel would finally submit that no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners/Accused 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C ^ for short‘IPC’ Nos.1 to 3 for the alleged offences. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners. In support of his contentions . learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court i Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and others Others^. in Vs. State of Punjab and 4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in unison, would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners which would attract against them. At this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioners the offence alleged cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition Point for determination: 5. Having heard the submissions of the learned the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is; Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners in C.C.No.58 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur? Determination by the Court: 6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so counsel representing both envisages as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (il) 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 ^ (2009) 7 see 712 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 and circumstances of the on the facts 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. 7. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others^ i torch in the application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. circumstances are spelt out as follows; Apex Court in State of is considered as the guiding At paras 102 and 103, the 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various ^^levant 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 ‘fh^^r inherent powers under Section 482 of extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration ofthTnZll exerc/secf 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 clearly defined and sufficiently channelised guidelines or rigid formulae and to myriad kinds of cases wherein exercised, ill '"I ^"^aations made in the first information report or afrf t '3®® vaiue and adapted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute 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 any precise, and inflexible give an exhaustive list of such power should be any '' AIR 1992 SC 604 5 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. (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) The present case has been registered against the Petitioners alleging 8. that after the death of the daughter of Respondent No.2, who is the wife of the Petitioner/Accused No.1, Respondent No.2 demanded the Petitioners to return the gold of her daughter and though the Petitioners agreed for the same in the presence of elders, had not returned the gold. There is no dispute with regard to the death of the daughter of Respondent No.2 during her delivery of the second child. A bare perusal of 9. the material placed on record would clearly show that, the Petitioner/Accused No.1 lodged a complaint against Respondent No.2 and her husband, who are his parents-in-law, alleging that, when his wife went to her parental home. during second pregnancy, they had taken the ATM cards etc., of his wife and also kept the house site registration document along with them and also got transferred an amount of Rs.1,21,000/- to the account of Respondent No.2 herein from the account of her daughter and thereby cheated the Petitioner/Accused No. 1. Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No. 107 of 2017 on the file of Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati Urban has also been registered against Respondent No.2 herein, her husband and another son-in-law for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 read with 34 IPC on 09.05.2017. Whereas, the present complaint has been lodged on 12.10.2019 much subsequent to the lodging of the complaint by Petitioner/Accused No.1. Admittedly, the first child of the daughter of Respondent No.2 and Petitioner/Accused No.1 is in the care and custody of the Petitioners. 10. At this juncture it is relevant to refer to Sections 415 and 420 IPC which read as follows: “415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to jss.. 7 deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally Induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” For the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, Respondent 11. No.2 has to show that the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the Accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 IPC ; J can be said to have been made out. In the instant case, except the bald and omnibus allegation that agreeing to return the gold articles of the daughter of Respondent No.2, the Petitioners failed to do so, there is no iota of evidence to prove the same. As per the guideline of Bhajanlal’s case (supra), even if the allegations levelled against the Petitioners are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constituteany offence or make out a case against the Petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that, as a counterblast to the case in Crime No.107 of 2017 registered against the Respondent No.2, the present ( 8 ! complaint has been lodged against the Petitioners with false and untenable allegations. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there are \ no tenable grounds to continue the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 and as such, the same are liable to be quashed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.58 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur for the offence under Section 420 read with 34 IPC. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class, Railway Kodur, YSR Kadapa District. One CC to Sri. Ramakrishna Akurathi, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri M S P Kamaraju, Advocate.[OPUC] Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] Three C.D Copies. 2. 3. 4. 5. Ssl vna HIGH COURT DATED:07/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.3188 of 2022 SJAHOMTSJ^ * 0 3 FEB 2025 -e to, I ft y/ ^ . Current Section ^ p€SPATCVV^^ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION