APHC010372902019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6789/2019 Between: G.chennakesavulu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. HARINADH NIDAMANURI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 VS,J Crlp_6789_2019 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.341 of 2019 on the file of Tiruchanur Police Station, Tirupati Urban, Chittoor District. 2. The petitioner herein is the accused and the 2nd respondent herein is the defacto complainant. The 2nd respondent has submitted a complaint to the Circle Inspector, Tiruchanur, stating that he is a resident of plot No.304, Padmavathi Plaza, Thanapalli Cross, Tirupati Rural mandal and is doing tiles business in R.C.road. In the year 2013, the marriage of the defacto complainant was performed with one P. Ramya, in the presence of elders and have started leading their life happily, but, they were not blessed with children till the date of the complaint. While so, the 2nd respondent sustained financial loss in his business and as such, he gave cheques to some persons including one Venkat Rao, who filed a case before the jurisdictional court as the said cheque was returned. Hence, the 2nd respondent has approached the petitioner herein to represent on his behalf in the court. Due to the said case, the petitioner is alleged to have visited the place of the defacto complainant and is alleged to have gathered information of the properties of the 2nd respondent. With an intention to grab the properties of the 2nd respondent and with an intention to make him bad in the mind of the 2nd respondent’s wife, the petitioner herein is alleged to have visited the house of the 2nd respondent in his absence and tried to take his wife into custody, thereby intending to separate both the 2nd respondent and his wife. The petitioner is further alleged to have threatened the 2nd respondent to give divorce to his wife. 3. While so, the 2nd respondent was instructed by the petitioner herein to come to Chittoor along with his wife, thus, the 2nd respondent along with his wife went to Chittoor on 11.07.2019 where, the 2nd respondent was forced to sign on the divorce petition, but, the 2nd respondent has denied to do 3 VS,J Crlp_6789_2019 the same, then the petitioner has threatened the 2nd respondent that he would kill him with the help of his henchmen. Frightened of the said action of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has signed in the divorce petition and came back to Tirupati. On the next day i.e. 12.07.2019 at 12.00 p.m., the petitioner herein along with the wife of the 2nd respondent have quarrelled with the 2nd respondent and necked him out of the house. The 2nd respondent placed the gold ornaments of his mother and sister in law weighing 650 grams and an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in the said house and when the 2nd respondent came home for taking the said ornaments and cash, he found that the house was locked and when he has called his wife, the said call was not answered. Stating thus, the 2nd respondent has submitted complaint to the Police requesting to take action against the petitioner herein and as well as his wife, upon receipt of which the police have registered a case in Cr.No.341 of 2019 on the file of Tiruchanur Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 464, 341 and 506 IPC. Seeking quashment of the said case, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. When the petition came up for hearing on 11.11.2019, this Court has passed the following interim order: “In view of the fact that after the document is supposedly signed the complainant appeared before the Court as is necessary under the Family Court’s Act and presented the application for divorce, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the learned counsel has made out a point. The petitioner before this Court is an Advocate, who drafted the application for mutual consent divorce. Because the complainant appeared in the Court and stated that there is another Advocate, who was also involved in preparation of the divorce application, this Court is of the opinion that there should be a stay of further proceedings in FIR No.341 of 2018 for a period of two weeks i.e., till 25.11.2019.” 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the contents of the complaint and has submitted that there are differences between the 2nd respondent and his wife as the same could not be resolved, they filed mutual divorce petition on 12.07.2019 vide 4 VS,J Crlp_6789_2019 HMOP.No.123/2019 before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Chittoor. The 2nd respondent approached another advocate and has subsequently presented the divorce application by appearing before the learned Senior Civil Judge. When the case was called, both the 2nd respondent and his wife personally appeared before the presiding officer seeking mutual divorce. When the 2nd respondent himself has appeared before the court below personally, the question of forcing/threatening him to sign on the divorce petition does not arise. Hence requested to quash the proceedings in FIR.No.341 of 2019 on the file of Tiruchanur Police Station, Tirupati Urban, Chittoor District. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner would constitute offence punishable under Sections 464, 341 and 506 IPC, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed at this stage. 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.341 of 2019 on the file of Tiruchanur Police Station, Tirupati Urban, Chittoor 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 5 VS,J Crlp_6789_2019 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. 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 1AIR 1960 SC 866 6 VS,J Crlp_6789_2019 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” 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. 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 VS,J Crlp_6789_2019 (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. 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 seen that in 2013, the 2nd respondent married P. Ramya in the presence of elders, and they began their married life happily. However, they were unable to have children by the time the complaint was made. Meanwhile, the 2nd respondent faced significant financial losses in his business and issued cheques to several individuals, including Venkat Rao, who filed a case in the jurisdictional court after one of the cheques was returned. As a result, the 2nd respondent approached the petitioner to represent him in court. In connection with the case, the petitioner allegedly visited the 2nd respondent’s residence and gathered information about his properties. It is claimed that the petitioner, with an intent to rob the 2nd respondent’s properties and tarnish his image in the eyes of his wife, visited the 2nd respondent’s home in his absence. The petitioner allegedly attempted to take his wife into custody, intending to separate them. Furthermore, the petitioner is said to have threatened the 2nd respondent, demanding that he has to sign on the divorce petition. Subsequently, the petitioner instructed the 2nd respondent to come to Chittoor with his wife. On 11.07.2019, the 2nd respondent and his wife travelled to 8 VS,J Crlp_6789_2019 Chittoor, where the petitioner allegedly forced the 2nd respondent to sign the divorce petition. When the 2nd respondent initially refused, the petitioner is said to have threatened to kill him with the help of his associates. Fearing for his life, the 2nd respondent signed the divorce petition and returned to Tirupati. The 2nd respondent placed the gold ornaments of his mother and sister in law weighing 650 grams and an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in his house and when the 2nd respondent came home for taking the said ornaments and cash, he found that the house was locked and when he has called his wife, the said call was not answered. This lead the 2nd respondent to file a complaint before the Police. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo duly enclosing a memo filed by the 2nd respondent’s wife seeking to withdraw the HMOP.No.123 of 2019 which was filed for obtaining decree for dissolution of marriage. Thereafter, 2nd respondent’s wife has filed HMOP.No.215 of 2019 under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking to dissolve the marriage of the 2nd respondent and his wife by granting decree of divorce. Accordingly, divorce was granted on 03.12.2021. From the aforesaid events, it appears that the petitioner who was approached by the 2nd respondent for representing him in the Court in an issue related to issuance of cheques, has instigated the wife of the 2nd respondent to divorce him. Though the learned counsel for petitioner allege that the 2nd respondent himself has appeared before the court below for mutual divorce, the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation, cannot be addressed by this Court. It cannot either screen or assess the material on record at this stage like a mini trial to conclude as to whether the accusation fails and whether the 2nd respondent has appeared before the Court below on his own for obtaining decree of divorce or under threat. Hence, in a case of this nature, interference of this Court at the stage of trial would result in miscarriage of justice. A bare perusal of the complaint shows the allegations made against the petitioner require trial, before any decision as to his veracity is taken. 9 VS,J Crlp_6789_2019 15. In view of the above discussion, as the matter requires detailed investigation, it is not appropriate to intervene at this stage. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 10.02.2025 Gss