IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5454 OF 2023 Between: 1. Guttula Chandra Sekhar, S/o.Late.Venkat Rao, Aged about 73 Years, Occ. Senior Citizen, Ro.Flat No-101, Sri Vijayasekhara Nilayam, D.No.20-14-27, Ramachandraraopeta-2, Rajhmundry, East Godavari District. 2. Md.Gunshid, S/o.Md.Jahangir Basha, Aged 44 Years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No. 24-88/44/42/1, East Anandbagh, Electrical Sub Station, Malkaj igiri, Hyderabad-47. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1&2 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 2. Dr. A.Jhansi Lakshmi Bai, W/o.Late.V.Bhushan Rao, Aged 46 Years, Occ. Doctor, R/o.D.No. 26-32-9/9, Flat No-53, Sailaja Sadan Apartments, Chaitanya Nagar, Old Gajuwaka, Chinagantyada, Visakhapatnam-530026. ...RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to quash the Proceedings in C.C.No.12 of 2020, before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, against the Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2, Under Section 387, 500, 506,508,511,120-B R/w.34 of I.P.C. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further Proceedings C.C.No.12 of 2020, before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, against the Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2, Under Section 387, 500, 506,508,511,120-B R/w.34 of I.P.C. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: 1 HN, J Crl.P.No.5454 2023 APHC010370452023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5454/2023 Between: Guttula.Chandra Sekhar, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused{S): 1.S SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY Counsel for the Respondent/complalnant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.A VS LAXMI 2 HN, J Crl.P.No.5454 2023 The Court made the following Order: The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal 1. Procedure, 1973, is filed on behalf of the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.12 of 2020 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner/A3 and others for the offences punishable under Section 387, 500, 506, 508, 511, 120-B r/w 34 IPC. Originally, a private complaint was filed by 2'^'^ respondent/defacto- complainant as against the accused and the same was referred to police 2. under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Upon such direction, the police registered a case in Cr.No.510 of 2019 of Gajuwaka Police Station for the above said offences. Brief facts of the case are that, the defacto-complainant is resident of 3. Visakhapanam City. Her marriage was performed with one Vasamsetti Bhushanarao who is younger son of Vasamsetti Tatarao in the year 2000. After the marriage, she along with her husband lived with her father-in-law Vasamsetti Tatarao at Hyderabad up to year 2003. As the defacto- complainant and her husband are doctors, they went to Gajuwaka from Hyderabad for medical practice. The father-in-law of the defacto-complainant owned a valuable house property bearing No. 16-2-742/E/I/2 situated at Asmangad, Malakpet, Hyderabad. It is a self acquired property of the father- in-law of defacto-complainant. It is stated in the charge sheet that during marriage alliance in the presence of A1, A3 and her husband 3 HN, J Crl.P.No.5454_2023 Bheemeswararao and in the presence of caste elders, it was stated that the house property belongs to the husband of defacto-complainant and the elder brother of husband of defecto-complainant one Dr.Balamurali Krishna and the petitioner herein relinquished their right by way of deed in the year 1999 giving up their right over the house property. On 02.11.2015 the father-in-law of the defacto-complainant died in Hyderabad. Thereafter it is alleged that A1 to A3 conspired together and had a plan to grab the above said house property. In order to grab the said property by hook or crook, A3 in pursuance of conspiracy with A1 and A2 put the defacto-complainant and her husband in fear of death in order to commit extortion of the said property. It is alleged that they performed “Kshudra Pujas” by sending messages to the husband of defacto-complainant through whatsapp, as a result of which, the husband of defacto-complainant died on 11.04.2019. Due to sudden demise of the husband of defacto-complainant, she was in depression. During that time, it is alleged that A1 commented that she is having the proposal of marrying again after death of her husband. The defacto-complainant was hurt by the said words uttered by the A1 in defaming her reputation and character in asking her to get married. A2 also defamed husband of defacto-complaina nt. It is alleged that A1 to A3 threatened defacto-complainant and her children with dire consequences. Basing on the said accusation, the defacto-complainant has resorted in filing a private complaint and the same was referred to Police, who registered the crime and filed charge sheet after completion of investigation. The said 4 HN, J Crl.P.No.5454_2023 charge sheet has been taken on file and the same is numbered as C.C.No.12 of 2020 on the file of the III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court Gajuwaka. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even accepting the 4. entire accusations to be true, there is no offence under Section 387 IPC or 500 IPC as alleged would attract as against the petitioner. The petitioner is a Doctor residing at Hyderabad. 5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has contended that there is a specific accusation as against the petitioner that the petitioner along with A1 and A2 performed “Kshudra pujas” so as to eliminate the husband of defacto-complainant with an evil idea of grabbing the property belonging to the husband of defacto-complainant. He submitted that these are disputed of questions of fact and have to be decided in the trial court. 6. The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor Soora Venkata Sainath has strenuously contended that the concept of divine things and witchcraft would not in any way attract any provisions of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Heard. Perused the record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner and the defacto-complainant are related to each other. The whole dispute arose in between both the parties in respect of a house property bearing D.No.16-2-742/E/1/2 situated at Asmangad Malakpet, Hyderabad. The said property is the self acquired by the father-in- law of the defacto-complainant. It is alleged that during the marriaae alliance 5 HN, J Crl.P.No.5454_2023 of the defacto-complainant, the father-in-law of defacto-complai nant seems to have expressed that the property would belong to the husband of defacto- complainant and the said announcement has been made in the presence of the caste elders and in the presence of petitioner, A1 and others. It is also stated that the petitioner herein had given an affidavit to that extent that she relinquished the right over the said property in the year 1999 itself. While so, on 02.11.2015 the father-in-law of defacto-complainant died and thereafter, A1 to A3 conspired themselves with an evil idea to grab the said property and they alleged to have performed kshudra pujas by sending messages to the husband of defacto-complainant through Whatsapp, as a result of the messages, the husband of the defacto-complainant died on 11.04.2019. A perusal of Doctor’s certificate dated 15.04.2019 issued by the RK Hospitals, Gajuwaka goes to show that the husband of defacto-complainant died due to “Septic shock with multi organ dysfunction syndrome and severe metabolic acidosis”. Therefore, the question of death of husband of defacto-complainant would not by any away arose, in view of pujas being performed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lai and others AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604 Para 108 wherein it is stated that; 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. 9. HN, J Crl.P.No.5454_2023 2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R 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 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 against the accused. 4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R 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 F.I.R., or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there i_ 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. a case no IS A perusal of the said judgment goes to show that the column the guidelines framed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which No.5 of categorically says 7 HN, J Crl.P.No.5454_2023 that where the allegations made in the F.I.R., 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. Admittedly going by the accusations contained in the charge sheet, the accusations are so absurd, on the basis of which, no prudent person could ever come to conclusion that the acts alleged to have been committed by the 10. petitioner herein would attract the above said offences as mentioned in the charge sheet. Even on perusal of column No.7 of the guidelines framed above, this case would come within the purview a case where the proceedings have been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreck vengeance against the petitioner in order to deviate her in claiming the property from the defacto-complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that in pursuant to the filing of the said complaint, the petitioner resorted in filing a suit in OS.No.114 of 2021 on the file of II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad as against the defacto-complainant and the same is pending, wherein the defacto-complainant has filed her counter-affidavit wherein the defacto- complainant has categorically stated that they are in possession of the said property. It is also stated in the counter that the plaintiff therein has executed a document to the extent that she is relinquishing her right by way of settlement. It is also shown in the counter that the complainant has made some construction over the said building and getting rents out of the said property. Apart from the same, accepting the entire accusations to be true, this court is HN, J . Crl.P.No.5454_2023 ot the opinion that no offence would attract as against the petitioner herein. When the case is not made out against the petitioner herein, the petitioner undergoing rigmarole of the entire trial would be vexatious. In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.12 of 2020 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. C.C.No.12 of 2020 11. The proceedings in on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam are quashed as against the petitioner/AS. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- W1 SRINJVAS assistant registrar \ //true copy// SECTION OFFICER To, Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. 1)1 Additional Chief Metropolitan 1. The 2 The Station House Officer, 3. One CC to 4. Two CCS to Amaravati [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam. SRI S SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY Advocate [OPUC] PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Pmg nm HIGH COURT DATED:30/04/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.5454 of 2023 ALLOWING THE CRLP