APHC010271952021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4360/2021 Between: Dasam Sesha Rao (wrongly Shown As Dasari Sesha Rao In Fir) and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. DASARI S V V S V PRASAD 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 VS,J Crlp_4360_2021 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.223 of 2021 on the file of the Prathipadu Police Station, East Godavari District. 2. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2, the 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant. The 2nd respondent has submitted a complaint to the Police stating that she along with her husband and children are living in Dharmavaram Village and that her husband is an agricultural coolie. The Government has given house sites to the poor under „Jagananna Colony-Pedalandarki illu‟ scheme in Dharmavaram Village aburring NH-6. The 2nd respondent was also allotted a house site in Jagananna Colony vide plot No.358 and while constructing house in the said site, on 25.07.2021, the petitioners herein have conducted a press meet alleging that several irregularities have taken place while distributing the Government sites and tried to create misconceptions. When the 2nd respondent, along with others questioned the petitioners herein, the petitioners have allegedly threatened to demolish the foundations and abused indiscriminately and tried to attack the 2nd respondent. Stating thus, the 2nd respondent has requested the police to take action against the petitioners herein. Upon receiving the said complaint, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.223 of 2021 against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Section 509 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC ST POA Act, 1989, amendment Act No.1 of 2015. Requesting to quash the said FIR, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners' argues that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the present case due to local political influence. The only accusation against them is that, while the complainant and others were at a 3 VS,J Crlp_4360_2021 site allotted to them under the 'Pedalandariki Illu' scheme, the petitioners held a press meeting alleging irregularities in land distribution. When the complainant and others questioned them, the petitioners allegedly pushed and abused them. Learned counsel further contends that there are no specific caste-related allegations and that even if the claims are true, they do not constitute offenses under the SC and ST (POA) Act against the petitioners herein. Hence, continuation of the proceedings in the impugned FIR is nothing but abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioners would constitute offence punishable under Section 509 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC ST POA Act, 1989, amendment Act No.1 of 2015, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. When the petition came up for hearing on 03.08.2021, this Court has passed the following interim order: “…Taking into consideration the facts of the case and as there are no specific allegations against the petitioners with regard to abusing in the name of caste, there shall be stay of all further proceedings in F.I.R.No.223 of 2021 of Prathipadu Police Station, East Godavari District, as far as the petitioners are concerned until further orders.” 6. 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 petitioners in F.I.R.No.223 of 2021 on the file of the Prathipadu Police Station, East Godavari District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 4 VS,J Crlp_4360_2021 7. Section 482 of Cr.P.C 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 a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be 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. 8. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows: In “R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab1”, the Apex Court laid down the following principles: (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; 1AIR 1960 SC 866 5 VS,J Crlp_4360_2021 (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. 9. 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 cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in 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 no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar2” 10. In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3” 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: 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 6 VS,J Crlp_4360_2021 (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 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. 11. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 12. On a perusal of the complaint, it can be seen that under „Jagananna Colony-Pedalandarki Illu‟ scheme, the 2nd respondent was allotted a house site vide plot No.358 and when the 2nd respondent started constructing house in the said site, on 25.07.2021, the petitioners herein have 7 VS,J Crlp_4360_2021 conducted a press meet alleging that several irregularities took place in distribution of the Government sites and are alleged to have created misconceptions. When the 2nd respondent has questioned the petitioners herein, it is alleged that the petitioners have pushed and abused the 2nd respondent. Basing on the same, the police registered a case in FIR.No.223 of 2021 of Prathipadu Police Station, East Godavari District for the offences under Section 509 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989. For better appreciation of the case, Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 are extracted hereunder: “3. Punishments for offences atrocities. (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— (s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view; 2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— (va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine;” 13. It can be understood from the above that if a person who is not a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe abuses a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name, then such person is liable for punishment for offences atrocities. In the case on hand, it is very clear that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners in so far as abusing the 2nd respondent in the name of caste is concerned, except stating that the petitioners have abused the 2nd respondent. Even otherwise, if at all the allegations are taken on its face value, no case is made out to attract the 8 VS,J Crlp_4360_2021 offences as alleged and the ingredients of the provisions of SC and ST (POA) Act are not attracted. 14. According to guidelines No.1 of guidelines formulated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (3rd Supra), if the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, 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, the Court can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. Applying the said principle to the present fats of the case, I find that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. 15. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in FIR No.223 of 2021 of Prathipadu Police Station, East Godavari District are hereby quashed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 07.01.2025 Gss