1 APHC010255852020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3985/2020 Between: 1. KOPPISETTI BHAVANNARAYANA, S/O. NOOKARAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 3-101/5, SOCIETY BANK STREET, SARPAVARAM VILLAGE, KAKINADA RURAL AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THROUGH SARPAVARAM POLICE STATION, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. LAKSHMANA RAO KOPPISETTI, S/O.NOOKARAJU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.3-24, DEVISETTIVARI STREET, SARPAVARAM VILLAGE, KAKINADA RURAL AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to call for the records in F.I.R.No 242 of 2020 dated.20.07.2020 on the file of Sarpavaram Police Station, East Godavari District and quash the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the 2 High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with the certified copy of the F.I.R Mo.242 of 2020 dated 20-07-2020 IA NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings inculding arrest of the petitioners in F.I.R 242 of 2020 dated 20-07-2020 on the file of the Criminal Petition station,East Godavari Distirct ,pending disposla of the Criminal petition Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3985/2020 ORDER: The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C)/ under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS act’), has been filed, by the Petitioner/accused, seeking to quash the proceedings pending against him in FIR No. 242 of 2020 dated 20.07.2020 on the file of Sarpavaram Police Station, East Godavari District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341 & 506 of I.P.C. 2. Heard Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Notice is served on the respondent No.2, none appeared. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, respondent No.2 and one other person are three brothers of the family. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent No.2 lodged this case and also filed a civil suit in O.S.No.631 of 2020 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, wherein, I.A.No.78 of 2020 was filed seeking temporary injunction regarding the subject property which was dismissed with a clear finding to the effect that the petitioner/respondent No.2 herein is not in possession and enjoyment of the subject land in the light of the gift deeds and sale deeds executed by him. Learned counsel would further submit that aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent No.2 herein preferred C.M.A.No.11 of 2021 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, that 4 was also dismissed confirming the order of the Civil Court. Learned counsel would further submit that there is a ‘rastha’ on the northern side of the subject property. The Panchayat laid a road on the eastern side. The petitioner and the other brother wanted to give some property to the Panchayat for the sake of the road. That proposal was refused by the respondent No.2 leading to the present case. Learned counsel would further submit that even on the face of the complaint, there are no allegations to attract either the offences punishable under Section 341 or 506 of IPC. Learned counsel finally prays to allow the petition. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.2 having filed the civil suit, could not succeed in getting any injunction order in his favour. There is a clear finding in I.A.No.78 of 2020 in O.S.No.631 of 2020 to the effect that the respondent No.2 was not in possession and enjoyment of the subject property in the light of the sale deeds, gift deeds executed by him. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even on the face of it, all the allegations are accepted, no case is made out against the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, it is beneficial to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manik Taneja Vs.State of Karnataka1 wherein it is held that mere expression of any words without any intention to cause harm would not 1 (2015) 7 SCC 423 5 be sufficient to apply Section 506 of the IPC. The threat must be with intention to cause harm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. In the present case, except making casual reference that the Petitioner threatened Respondent No.2 with dire consequences, nothing is there to attract the offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C. 7. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others2 is 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 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. 2AIR 1992 SC 604 6 (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) 7 8. In the backdrop of the legal positions referred supra and in the light of the facts and circumstances, no case is made out against the petitioner/accused and hence, it is a fit case for quashment. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner/Accused in FIR No. 242 of 2020 dated 20.07.2020 on the file of Sarpavaram Police Station, East Godavari District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341 & 506 of I.P.C. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 16.07.2025 UPS 8 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3985/2020 Dated.16.07.2025 UPS 91