APHC010212752022 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: 3704/2022 Between: 1. MIDATHANI RAMALINGESWARA RAO, S/O. APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC- RETIRED EMPLOOYEE, R/O. DOOR NO.5- 104, JAMA PETA, VODALI, PENUGONDA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. REDDY GANESH, S/O. APPA RAO AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. JAMA PETA, VODALI, PENUGONDA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. REDDY NAGESWARA RAO, S/O. APPA RAO AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC- TEACHER, R/O. GUMMALURU VILLAGE, KORUKONDA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. MIDATHANI VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O. M. RAMALINGESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE, R/O. DOOR NO.5-104, JAMA PETA, VODALI, PENUGONDA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. RAMBA RAMA RAO, S/O. APPALA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, R/O. DOOR NO.5-104, JAMA PETA, VODALI, PENUGONDA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT (A-8) ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. SMT BAJANKI VEERA PARVATHI, W/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE, R/O. DOOR NO.17-78, KUMMARLA STREET, ACHANTA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. RAMESH BABU PEDAPALLI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 2 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. U RAMANJANEYULU The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.108 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakol. 2. Heard Sri Ramesh Babu Pedapalli, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri U.Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, leaned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.2/State. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that Respondent No.1 is habituated to filing false cases against the local persons. Learned counsel would further submit that the Police after investigation referred the case as false and sent a final report to the Court, however, Respondent No.1 filed a private complaint with an intention to harass the Petitioners. Learned counsel would further submit that the son of Respondent No.1 married the daughter of Petitioner/Accused No.1 and in view of the matrimonial disputes between the couple, on 11.01.2014, both the families met at the house of Respondent No.1 for negotiations and during that time, there arose wordly quarrel and both the family members pushed each other and except that, nothing had happened. 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 3 Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioners are falsely implicated in the present case and the present case is a counterblast to the petitions in MC, DVC and a divorce petition filed by the daughter of Petitioner/Accused No.1 against the son of Respondent No.1. It is submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners for the commission of the alleged offences. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences and the same has to be revealed during trial. Learned counsel would further submit that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners, at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the Petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of learned counsel for Respondent No.1. 6. 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.108 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakol? Determination by the Court 7. 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 4 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. 8. Respondent No.1 lodged a complaint which was registered as a case in Crime No.13 of 2014 on the file of Achanta Police Station, West Godavari District for the offences under Sections 447, 323, 509 read with 34 IPC alleging that, the son of Respondent No.1 was given in marriage to the daughter of Petitioner/Accused No.1 and the couple had been staying in Chennai. In view of the disputes between the couple, the parents of her daughter-in-law took her along with them. The family of Respondent No.1 sent a legal notice to send her daughter-in-law to the matrimonial home. In that view, on 11.01.2014 at about 12.00 noon, Petitioner/Accused No.1 along with the other Accused came to the house of Respondent No.1, abused her in filthy language, beat her with hands, kicked her with legs, due to which she sustained bleeding injuries on her left ear and both the hands. When the daughter and husband of Respondent No.1 came to her rescue, they pushed them aside. Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 placed their hands on the chest of the daughter of Respondent No.1 and pushed her. They also leaked the 5 gas cylinder with a view to kill them. On hearing the cries raised by Respondent No.1 and her family members, neighbours gathered there and on seeing them, the Petitioners went away. The Police after conducting investigation, referred the case as false. Aggrieved thereby, Respondent No.1 filed a private complaint against the Petitioners which was numbered as C.C.No.108 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakol. As such, the present petition has been filed by the Petitioners seeking quashment of the case against them. 9. Admittedly, there were matrimonial disputes between the families of Respondent No.1 and the Petitioner/Accused No.1. It is the contention of learned counsel for Respondent No.1 that on reference of the complaint as ‘false’ by the Police, Respondent No.1 made a complaint before Lokayuktha, Hyderabad and as per the directions of Lokayuktha, the Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, Eluru got enquired the matter through the Inspector of Police, Palakol and having influenced by the Accused persons, the Inspector of Police without investigating into the matter, referred the above case to Lokayuktha stating that there are no witnesses in the above case and based on the said report, Lokayuktha closed the complaint filed by Respondent No.1 herein. 10. A bare perusal of the present complaint would disclose that, there are specific allegations levelled against the Petitioners, which have to be proved during trial. There are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against them, at this stage. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial while deciding the 6 petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The case does not fall under any of the guidelines mentioned by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others2. It is a matter of trial for disclosing the truth or otherwise of the allegations leveled against the Petitioners and there are no merits for quashment of the proceedings against them and hence, the petition deserves dismissal. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:09.01.2025 Dinesh 2 AIR 1992 SC 604 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.3704 of 2022 Dated:09.01.2025 Dinesh