APHC010273842021 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: 4391/2021 Between: Pullagommi @ Kareti Neeraja and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 VS,J Crlp_4391_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.612 of 2021 on the file of Bommuru Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban, East Godavari District. 2. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2, the 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant. The 1st petitioner is the mother of the 2nd petitioner. The 2nd respondent has submitted a complaint to the police stating that he is a Senior Journalist in S6 news channel. It is further stated that he, his wife and his younger daughter i.e. Gujjula Hema suffered with covid and got admitted in Government Hospital, Rajahmundry for undergoing treatment, during which, the wife of the 2nd respondent passed away on 01.07.2021. While so, on 14.07.2021 at 02.30 a.m., the elder daughter i.e. Gujjala Navya went missing and the 2nd respondent searched for her. While so, at 11.00 a.m., the 2nd respondent received a phone call from his cousin stating that the elder daughter of the 2nd respondent was kidnapped by her to perform marriage with her son i.e. the 2nd petitioner and threatened the 2nd respondent not to inform anyone. Stating thus, the 2nd respondent has filed a complaint, which was registered as Crime No.612 of 2021 under Sections 363, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Requesting to quash the said proceedings, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners herein are innocent. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent are close relatives and the elder daughter of the 2nd respondent and the 2nd petitioner loved each other; as the 2nd respondent did not agree for their marriage, the 2nd petitioner has married the elder daughter of the 2nd respondent who is a major, at Sri Abhayanjaneya Swamy Temple, Bhadrachalam on 14.07.2021. As the daughter of the 2nd respondent married against his will, the present complaint is filed with false allegations. He further 3 VS,J Crlp_4391_2021 submitted that both the 2nd petitioner and the daughter of the 2nd respondent are leading their marital life at Badrachalam. Learned counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court the affidavit filed by the daughter of the 2nd respondent stating that she has voluntarily married the 2nd petitioner herein. Hence, requested to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.612 of 2021 registered on the file of Bommuru Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban, East Godavari District. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioners would constitute offence punishable under Sections 363, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. When the criminal petition came up for hearing on 04.08.2021, this Court has passed the following interim order: “…Taking into consideration the age of the victim and also the receipt filed showing that the marriage of the 2nd petitioner and the daughter of the de facto complainant was performed at Sri Abhyanjaneya Swami Vari Devasthanam, Badrachalam and she is a major, there shall be stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.612 of 2021 of Bommuru Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban, only insofar 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.612 of 2021 on the file of Bommuru Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban, East Godavari District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 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 4 VS,J Crlp_4391_2021 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; (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. 1AIR 1960 SC 866 5 VS,J Crlp_4391_2021 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: (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. 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 6 VS,J Crlp_4391_2021 (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 material available on record, it can be seen that the petitioners and the 2nd respondent are related and the 2nd respondent is the cousin of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd respondent has lodged a complaint against the petitioners herein stating that he has received a phone call from the 1st petitioner that his daughter was kidnapped by them to perform marriage with the 2nd petitioner and that he was further threatened with dire consequences. As such, the police have registered a case in Crime No.612 of 2021 of Bommuru Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 506 read with 34 of IPC. For better appreciation of the case, the aforesaid sections are extracted hereunder: 7 VS,J Crlp_4391_2021 “363. Punishment for kidnapping.- Whoever kidnaps any person from [India] or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.- Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;” 13. Section 359 of IPC states that Kidnapping is of two kinds i.e. kidnapping from India and kidnapping from lawful guardianship. Section 360 of IPC defines Kidnapping from India which states that whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of India without the consent of that person, or of some person legally authorised to consent on behalf of that person, is said to kidnap that person from India. Section 361 of IPC defines Kidnapping from lawful guardianship which states that whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent contends that his elder daughter was kidnapped by the petitioners herein. However, it can be seen from the affidavit filed by the elder daughter of the 2nd respondent that she is aged 21 years and being a major, has married the 2nd petitioner with consent and that there was no force from the petitioners herein. She further stated that she is living happily with the 2nd petitioner at Badrachalam. 14. Taking into consideration the fact that the daughter of the 2nd respondent has married the 2nd petitioner with consent and without anyone’s insistence at Sri Abhyanjaneya Swami Vari Devasthanam, Badrachalam and that they are leading their marital life at Badrachalam, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence punishable under Sections 363, 506 read with 34 of IPC. Hence, the 8 VS,J Crlp_4391_2021 proceedings in Crime No.612 of 2021 of Bommuru Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban, East Godavari district are liable to be quashed against the petitioners. 15. Accordingly this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.612 of 2021 of Bommuru Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban, East Godavari district are quashed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 07.01.2025 Gss