APHC010336042022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4995/2022 Between: Smt.suravarapu Usha Rani, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. G L NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed, by the Petitioner/Accused No.3, seeking quashment of the proceedings against her in Cr.No.86 of 2022 on the file of the S.H.O., Atkur Police Station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 464, 468, 471, 477-A r/w 34 of IPC. 2. Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is A.3 who is the wife of A.1. Learned counsel would further submit that nothing has attributed against her to maintain the case for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 464, 468, 471, 477-A r/w 34 of IPC. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner obtained stay in this matter, when the matter is at the stage of FIR, due to which there is no progress in the investigation to incident her role in the present crime. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the petition may be disposed of giving liberty to the police to conclude the investigation. 3 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, the petitioner was shown as accused in the present case basing on the confessional statement of A.1 which leads to seizure of some documents from his possession. The information further would disclose that the property stands in the name of the petitioner. As rightly put up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor because of stay in this matter, the police could not proceed with the investigation to find out any role of the petitioner in the present crime. 6. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others1, wherein, a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the following principles of law:- “57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); 1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 4 v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C. ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P.Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and 5 xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.” (emphasis supplied) 7. In that view, without causing any prejudice to the rights and the contentions of the petitioner, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. The police are directed to proceed with the matter and conclude the investigation relating to A.3 and file a report according to law. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge, if any incriminating material found in the investigation, if advised so. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________________ Dr.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 02-01-2025 MH 6 09 HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE Dr.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.4995 of 2022 Dt.02.01.2025 MH