APHC010334552021 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: 5180/2021 Between: Smt. Jogi Kanakaveni, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND Penta Adi Lakshmi and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. K RAMA KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. The Court made the following: 2 VS,J Crlp_5180_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.319 of 2021 on the file of Dowaleswaram Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban District. 2. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.2 to 5 who are mother, sister, brother and cousin of the 1st accused respectively and the 1st respondent is the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant has submitted a complaint to the Police stating that she is residing along with her parents and is studying degree final year. It is stated that the accused No.1 has been following the defacto complainant since 4 years and that she fell in love with him. The 1st accused has promised that he would marry her and thus, with a deceitful intention took her to the Pushakargot, Bommur in the year 2017 where the 1st accused met the defacto complainant physically. Thereafter, the defacto complainant advised several times that it is not proper, but the accused No.1 has threatened to commit suicide, due to which the defacto complainant had to accept physical relationship with him. 3. In the year 2020, the 1st accused used to come to the aunt’s house of the defacto complainant, even then he maintained physical relationship with the defacto complainant; when he was advised that it is improper, the 1st accused had informed the parents of the defacto complainant that he would not marry her. Thereafter, though the father and paternal grandmother of the defacto complainant talked to him, he initially agreed to marry her, but had later rejected the same. At that juncture, the defacto complainant informed the same to the father and sister of the 1st accused. Thereafter, the mother of the 1st accused, without bringing to the knowledge of the defacto complainant herein has kept the 1st accused at his maternal aunt’s house in Hyderabad. When the defacto complainant made a call to the younger brother of the 1st accused, the petitioner was abused with filthy 3 VS,J Crlp_5180_2021 language and the 1st accused has stated that he has no intention to marry her except maintaining physical relationship. Subsequently, after coming to know the whereabouts of the 1st accused, the defacto complainant went to Hyderabad and found the 1st accused in the house of one Raji i.e. the 4th petitioner herein, who is the daughter of maternal aunt of the 1st accused. When the 1st accused denied to come along with the defacto complainant, she called the Police upon which, the 1st accused agreed to come along with her and they boarded train to Vijayawada on 25.06.2021. In Vijayawada, they both got down the train and the 1st accused talked with his mother through phone subsequent to which, the 1st accused ran away from the place leaving the defacto complainant alone in the Vijayawada Railway Station. Stating thus, the defacto complainant has filed a complaint before the Dowaleswaram Police Station and accordingly, a case was registered as against all the accused in crime No.319 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376(2)(n) read with Section 34 IPC. Requesting to quash the aforementioned case, the petitioners/accused 2 to 5 have filed the present criminal petition. 4. When the criminal petition came up for hearing on 14.09.2021, this Court has passed the following order: “…Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be interim stay of further proceedings only against the petitioners, who are A-2 to A-5, in Crime No.319 of 2021 of Dowaleswaram Police Station, including taking coercive steps, till the next date of hearing. It is made clear that investigation against A-1 shall go on.” 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contents of the complaint and has specifically contended that a crime has been registered against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376(2)(n) read with Section 34 IPC, but, the case under the aforesaid sections would be made out from the facts of the case only against the 1st accused and absolutely, no case 4 VS,J Crlp_5180_2021 whatsoever punishable under Sections 417 and 376(2)(n) IPC will be made out against the petitioners herein who are only mother, brother, sister and cousin sister of the 1st accused. He further contended that such launching of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is legally unsustainable and it amounts to abuse of process of Court. Hence requested to quash the proceedings in crime No.319 of 2021 on the file of Dowaleswaram Police Station, Rajamahendravaram. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner would constitute offence punishable under Sections 417 and 376(2)(n) IPC,therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed at this stage and that the petitioners played an active role as can be read from the complaint. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. 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.319 of 2021 on the file of Dowaleswaram Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 8. 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 5 VS,J Crlp_5180_2021 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. 9. 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. 10. 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, 1AIR 1960 SC 866 6 VS,J Crlp_5180_2021 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” 11. 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. (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. 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 VS,J Crlp_5180_2021 (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. 12. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 13. On a perusal of the material available on record, it can be understood that the case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused and the defacto complainant herein loved each other and on the promise made by the 1st accused, the defacto complainant maintained physical relationship with the 1st accused. But, however, the 1st accused subsequently refused to marry her stating that he does not have any intention to marry her but he only intended to maintain physical relationship with her. On a perusal of the said complaint, it can also be observed that the petitioners who are mother, sister, brother and cousin of the 1st accused have only supported the acts of the 1t accused, but there are no specific allegations as against them. 14. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, it can be seen that the main allegation of cheating the defacto complainant is only against the 1st accused, but not against the petitioners herein. For better understanding of the case, Sections 417, 376(2)(n) read with Section 34 IPC are extracted hereunder: “417. Punishment for cheating.— Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. 376(2)(n).Whoever.— 8 VS,J Crlp_5180_2021 commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.” 15. On a perusal of the aforesaid sections under which a case has been registered against the petitioners, it is absolute that no case could be made out against the petitioners herein. The allegations levelled against the petitioners herein relate to the events that took place subsequent to the alleged offence committed by the 1st accused. As such, when no specific role is attributed to the petitioners herein, this Court is of the opinion that it would be an abuse of process of court, if the criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein are continued. As per the principle No.1 of the principles laid down in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (1st Supra) if 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, the Court can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. Applying the said principle to the present facts of the case and keeping in view the above discussion, I find that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. 16. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.319 of 2021, dated 13.07.2021 on the file of Dowaleswaram Police Station, Rajamahendravaram urban district are hereby quashed only against the petitioners herein. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 07.01.2025 Gss