1 APHC010215952022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3389/2022 Between: ByrapuneniSivanajaneyulu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. K VARUN SHYAM KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. ROSEDAR SRA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3389/2022 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short,“Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioner/ Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against him in FIR No.225 of 2022 of Ongole Taluka P.S., Prakasam District. 2. Heard Sri M. Hari Krishna, learned Counsel representing Sri K. Varun Shyam Kumar, Sri Rosedar S.R.A, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the criminal case against the petitioner under Section 354-D of the I.P.C. is a retaliatory action by the respondent No.2. The petitioner is accused in Cr. No. 225 of 2022, where the charge is related to stalking (as per Section 354-D). The learned counsel contends that this case was filed as a counteraction to a previous case lodged by the petitioner against the respondent (Cr. No. 187 of 2022) for the alleged offence of forgery and use of forged documents under Sections 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner elaborates that the respondent worked in the petitioner’s company from 6thJuly 2020 to 18th December 2021 and left the company, abruptly without submitting the necessary resignation, as per the terms of the employment agreement. Later, when the petitioner’s company received an inquiry from another company 3 (Adamma Info Services Pvt. Ltd.) about the validity of the respondent’s relieving and experience certificates, it was discovered that the certificates were forged and not issued by the petitioner’s company. As a result, the petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondent No.2, but the respondent No.2did not reply, prompting the petitioner to file a criminal case (Cr. No. 187 of 2022) for forgery. It is contended that in retaliation, the respondent No.2 allegedly filed false allegations against the petitioner, accusing the petitioner of committing the offence under Section 354-D IPC (stalking). Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the case is baseless, motivated by personal vendettas, and amounts to an abuse of the legal process. In short, the petitioner’s counsel is asserting that the case is a tactic by the respondent No.2 to harass the petitioner and counter the petitioner’s case for the forgery. Ultimately, the learned counsel requests that the proceedings against the petitioner be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that simply because this case has been lodged with some delay, the Court cannot conclude at this stage that it is a false case. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent No.2 was sexually abused by the petitioner while she was working in the said company. Learned counsel would further submit that as per the demands made by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 with great difficulty paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner and obtained the certificates. The certificates which were presented by the respondent No.2 in the new company are genuine, only to harass the respondent No.2, the said 4 case has been lodged against the respondent No.2. Learned counsel finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the court may pass appropriate Orders. 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 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. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the powerunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others1is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. 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 1AIR 1992 SC 604 5 channelized 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. (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) 6 7. The petitioner is facing the allegations that while the respondent No.2 was working in the company, he used to pass some comments against the respondent No.2 and he also tried to insist her for sexual favours for giving her certificates. As can be seen from the material available before this Court, there is no dispute about the fact that the respondent No.2 worked in the petitioner’s company from 06.07.2020 till 18.12.2021. Even according to the contents of the complaint, it was shown that the respondent No.2 became pregnant, she could not attend office, she was directed by the petitioner to apply for Medical Leave. She was informed in advance that the company would not give her maternity leave so by all means, she never attended the office since 18.12.2021. Even according to her, she has joined in the new company on 10.01.2022. Till that time, the said complaint is not on record. The petitioner’s company received the mail from M/s.Adamma Info Services Pvt. Ltd., for verification of the genuineness of the certificates submitted by the respondent No.2. On such verification, the said certificates were infact issued to one T.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy and that by using the very same number these certificates were created by forging the signatures of the CEO. In that regard, a legal notice was issued to the respondent No.2. the information which is submitted to the Police by the respondent No.2 would show that she has received the said legal notice. Her explanation for her silence on the legal notice which is given by the respondent No.2 is neither reasonable nor plausible. Be that as it may, the petitioner has lodged a criminal case against her on 26.03.2022 which is registered as Cr.No.187 of 2022 for the offence 7 under Sections 465, 468 & 471 of I.P.C. While so, the present case has been lodged against the petitioner on 09.04.2022 which is registered as Cr.No.225 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Section 354-D of I.P.C. 8. In the backdrop of the legal position referred supra, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears only to overcome the case lodged against the respondent No.2, this case has been lodged against the petitioner. In that view, continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner is mere abuse of process of law. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The case pending against the petitioner in in FIR No.225 of 2022 of Ongole Taluka P.S., Prakasam District is hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 25.02.2025 UPS 8 115 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.3389 of 2022 Dt.25.02.2025 UPS