APHC010239082022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3597/2022 Between: 1. KANDAVALLI PRABHAKARA RAO @ PRABHAKAR,, S/O LATE SRI MAHALAKSHMI, HINDU, AGE- 40 YEARS, OCC- HEAD CONSTABLE, SAKHINATIPALLI PS, SAKHINATIPALLI - 533 251, KONASEEMA DISTRICT 2. ANASURI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O SRI VENKANNA, HINDU. AGE- 52 YEARS. OCC- ASST. SUB INSPECTOR, SPECIAL BRANCH, 0/O SP, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. BEERA VENKATA RATNAM,, S/O SRI VENKATA RAO, HINDU, AGE- 49 YEARS, OCC- HEAD CONSTABLE, VARA RAMACHANDRAPURAM PS, VARA RAMACHANDRAPURAM - 533 255 ALLURI SITARAMA RAJU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. (NOT A NECESSARY PARTY) 2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF SPE AND ACB CASES, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. A GAYATHRI REDDY Standing Counsel for ACB cum Spl. PP The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.677 of 2021 on the file of the Court of VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram for the offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602. 2. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.A.Gayatri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ACB-cum-Special Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners herein are P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 in C.C.No.7 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram. Learned counsel would further submit that without following the procedure contemplated under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the present complaint has been filed for the offence under Section 193 IPC, as such, the same is not maintainable under law. Learned counsel would finally submit that the learned Magistrate had mechanically taken cognizance of the alleged offence against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.S.Nandiesha Reddy vs. Kavitha Mahesh3, Sasikala Pushpa 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 for short ‘IPC’ 3 Civil Appeal No.4821 of 2012, dated03.08.2021 3 and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu4 and Amarsang Nathaji vs. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel5. 4. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the learned Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram has followed the established procedure of Cr.P.C and has given directions to the Senior Superintendent of the Court to file a complaint against the Petitioners herein. It is submitted that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.677 of 2021 on the file of the Court of VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram? 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 4 (2019) 6 SCC 477 5 (2017) 1 SCC 113 4 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. A bare perusal of the material placed on record would reveal that, based on the complaint lodged by Accused No.1 herein, a case in C.C.No.7 of 2018 was registered against Gunnam Satyanarayana and Kantaspurthi Sreeramulu before the trial Court for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned trial Judge, after full-fledged trial, having come to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case against said Gunnam Satyanarayana, beyond reasonable doubt, acquitted him from the said case and dismissed the case against Kantaspurthi Sreeremulu since he died. The learned trial Judge, while acquitting said Gunnam Satyanarayana, directed the Chief Administrative Officer of the said Court to lodge a complaint against the Petitioners herein for the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC for giving false evidence. Accordingly, based on the complaint filed by the Senior Superintendent of the trial Court, C.C.No.44 of 2019 was registered against the Petitioners herein on the file of the Court of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram for the offence under Section 193 IPC. Subsequently, the said case was transferred to the Court of the learned VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram and renumbered as C.C.No.677 of 2021. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed for quashment of the case against the Petitioners. 8. A bare perusal of the judgment in C.C.No.677 of 2021 would reveal that, as rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, there are inconsistencies and improvements in the version of Accused No.1, who is the Complainant in the said 5 case, regarding the alleged demand of bribe. Petitioner/Accused No.1 had changed his version from time to time, which are inconsistent regarding the crucial aspects as to who demanded the bribe and the date, place and mode of alleged demand of bribe. Further, Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 herein, who are P.Ws.2 and 6 in C.C.No.7 of 2018 also gave evidence by introducing a new story deviating from their earlier versions. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the truth or otherwise of the allegations leveled against the Petitioners herein, has to be revealed during trial. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioners are not helpful to the case of the Petitioners. There are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners at this stage and hence, the petition deserves dismissal. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:21.01.2025 Dinesh 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.3597 of 2022 Dated:21.01.2025 Dinesh