•m IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI rj- m k MONDAY .THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA O CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3791 OF 2020 Between: B Seshagiri Rao, S/o. Late Venkatanarayana, Age. 46 years, r/o Peddaveedhi, Radhavallabhapuram Village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh - 532 201 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.3 AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh , Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tekkali Police Station, Tekkali, Srikakulam District, AP - 532 201. ...RESPONDENT 2. Killi Ajay Kumar, s/o K.Mallana, aged 30 years, r/o Radhavallabhapuram, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 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 quash Crime No.205 of 2020 dated 23.04.2020 on the file of Tekkali P.S., Srikakulam District, against the petitioner. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition .0e High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings inclpyin^ the arrest of the petitioner, in Crime No.205 of 2020 dated 23,M.20‘20 on the file of Tekkali P.S., Srikakulam District, against the petitioners. > > > 'i- i- i V This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following Order: 1 APHC010245452020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3791/2020 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED B Seshagiri Rao AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) The State of A.P. and another Counsel for the Petitioner/accused; 1.MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S); 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following; 2 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.205 of 2020 on the file of Tekkali Police Station, Srikakulam District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 109, 188 read with 34 IPC and Sections 66(c) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008. nd The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/2 2. respondent made a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tekkali Police Station/1 respondent herein, stating that accused Nos.1 and 2, residents of Radhavallabhapuram Village, at the instance of accused No.3/petitioner posted updates on their WhatsApp status regarding the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh in a disrespectful and insulting manner. On 23.04.2020 at 10.00 am., when accused Nos.1 and 2 were sitting near Peepal tree on the east side of Radhavallabhapuram village, the defacto complainant, along with six others, went there to question accused No.1 and 2 regarding the comments and updates they had posted on their WhatsApp and accused Nos.1 and 2 allegedly abused the defacto complainant and others in filthy language and threatened to kill them. Immediately, the defacto complainant and others escaped from the scene. Basing on the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.205 of 2020 at Tekkali Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 109, 188 read with 34 IPC and Sections 66(c) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008. I 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the No.3 is implicated in a false petitioner/accused case with an intention to threaten him, though he was not present at the scene of offence. It is further submitted that the petitioner neither made any disrespectful or insulting comments or posted any updates in his WhatsApp status and did not insult, intimidate or abuse the then Chief Minister. Therefore prays to allow the criminal petition. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the alleged the petitioner are sufficient to conclude that the petitioner committed offence punishable under Sections 504, 506, 109, 188 read with 34 IPC 66(c) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008. acts of and Sections 5. 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 against the petitioner in Crime No.205 of 2020 of Tekkaii Police Station, Srikakulam District are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 ofCr.P.C.?” The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Section 482 of Cr.P.C 6. 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 to make an order, it must have also a Court has authority power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be 4 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. 7. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows: In “RP. Kapur v. State of Punjab' following principles; i» the Apex Court laid down the (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; (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. AIR I960 sc 866 8. 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 taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the 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 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 justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar^ ” cognizance is same in no 9. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Laf’" 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: ^AIR 1990 SC 494 ^1992 Supp(1)SCC 335 6 % (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 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. (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. an (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. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 10. The offences alleged in the present case are under Sections 504, 506, 109, 188 read with 34 IPC and Sections 66(c) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008. Section 504 I.P.C. reads as under: 7 Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.— Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Section 506 I.P.C. reads as under: Punishment for criminal intimidation.— Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprison-ment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;lf threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.— And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Section 109 I.P.C. reads as under: Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment.— Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.Explanation.— An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment. Section 188 I.P.C. reads as under: Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.— Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction,shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both;and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 8 Section 66(c) I.P.C. reads as under: Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc. Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,- a) XXX b) XXX c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages. shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two three years and with fine. Section 67 I.P.C. reads as under: Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material In electronic form Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient Interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and In the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees. 11. In the instant case, the allegation against the petitioner/accus ed No.3 is that at his instance, accused Nos.1 and 2 have posted objectionable updates on their WhatsApp status insulting the then Chief Minister. Except this allegation, there is no other averment or material placed on record to show as to how the petitioner/accused No.3 instigated the accused Nos.1 and 2 to indulge in such act. Furthermore, according to the allegations, when the defacto complainant and others questioned accused Nos.1 and 2 about the posting of objectionable updates on their WhatsApp status, accused Nos.1 and 2 abused them and threatened to kill them. However, it is not the case of 9 the prosecution that the petitioner/A3 was also present during that incident along with accused Nos.1 and 2. There is no allegation whatsoever indicating the presence or participation of the petitioner/A3 in the said incident. All the allegations are directed against accused Nos.1 and 2 only, stating that they abused the defacto complainant and others and threatened to kill them when they questioned them regarding the updates posted on their WhatsApp status insulting the then Chief Minister. Thus, it is clear that except making a bald allegation that at the instance of the petitioner/accused No.3, accused Nos.1 and 2 have posted objectionable updates on their Whatsapp status, there is other allegation or specific overt acts attributed against the no petitioner/accused No.3 to prima facie indicate his involvement in the alleged offences. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that continuing the proceedings against the proceedings against the petitioner/A3 would amount to abuse of process of law and thus, the proceedings against him are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused No.3 in Crime No.205 of 2020 on the 11. file of Tekkali Police Station, Srikakulam District, are hereby quashed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- P U V BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGI AR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Tekkaii Police Station, Srikakulam District. 2. One CC to Sri. Meka Rahul Chowdary, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.[OUT] i 4. Three CD Copies vna HIGH COURT DATED:24/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.3791 of 2020 0 3 APR ?0?5 ^ . Current Jieeilon ^*S»^SPATC\^ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION