IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6122 OF 2022 Between: 1. Anil Kumar Harbola, S/o.Late Nand Kishor Harbola, aged about years, Occ;Commander, Presently working at Headquarters, Coast Guard Region (North-West), Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat. 2. Ram Mehar, S/o.Late Prabhu Ram, aged about 56 years, Occ:Mater Chief Boatswain-mate, Presently working at Indian Coast Pollution Response Team (West), Mazgaon, Mumbai. 57 Guard 3. Shiv Pratap Yadav, S/o.Late Raj Nath Yadav, aged about 46 years, Occ:ln-Charge Minor and LP (DTP and GeM Cases), Presently working at Coast Guard District Headquarters No. 11 (Goa), Chicolina, Bagmalo, Goa- 403 806. ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2 & 3 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP. 2. B.Shanti, W/o.Satyanarayana, aged about 41 Guard Quarters, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam. years, C-1/6, Coast ...Respondents Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, praying that in the the High Court may be pleased to pass an order calling for the records in connection with CC No.857 of 2021 on the file of III Additional Chief Metroj^ftan Magistrate, Gajuwaka registered under sections 427, 506 and 509 oflpcl and quash the same so far as the petitioners are concerned. V OF 2023 Between: B.Shanti, W/o.Satyanarayana, aged 41 years, R/o.C-1/6, Coast Guard Quarters, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam District. ...Petitioner/Respondent No.2 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court Premises, Nelapadu, Amaravathi, Guntur District. ...Respondent/Respondent No.1 2. Anil Kumar Harbola, S/o.Late Nanda Kishor Harbola, aged 57 years, OcciCommander, working at Head Quarters, Coast Guard Region (North West), Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat. 3. Ram Mehar, S/o.Late Prabhu Ram, aged 56 years, Occ:Matter Chief Boatswain-mate, working at Indian Coast Guard Pollution Response Team (West), Mazgaon, Mumbai. 4. Shiv Pratap Yadav, S/o.Late Raj Nath Yadav, aged 46 years, Occ:In- Charge Minor and LP (DTP and GeM Cases), working at Coast Guard District Head Quarters No.11 (Goa), Chicolina, Bagmalo, Goa- 403 806. ...Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 3 Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted on 10-08-2022 in lA No.1 of 2022 in the Crl.P.No.6122 of 2022. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings CC No.857 of 2021 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Gajuwaka under Sections 427, 506 and 509 of I.P.C. in This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B Narasimha Sarma, Additional Solicitor General representing Sri V.K.Yatnadutt, Central Government Counsel, for the Petitioners and Smt K.Priyanka Lakshmi, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No.1 and of Sri S.V.R.Subrahmanyam Respondent No.2 Advocate for The Court made the following: ORDER r APHC010400022022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6122/2022 % [3396] Between: 1.ANIL KUMAR HARBOLA, S/0 LATE NAND KISHOR HARBOLA AGED ABOUT 57 YRS OCC . COMMANDER, PRESENTLY WORKING AT HEADQUARTERS, COAST GUARD REGION (NORTH-WEST), GANDHI NAGAR, GUJARAT. 2. RAM MEHAR, S/0 LATE PRABHU RAM, AGED ABOUT 56 YRS OCC . MATER CHIEF BOATSWAIN-MATE PRESENTLY WORKING AT INDIAN COAST GUARD POLLUTION RESPONSE TEAM (WEST), MAZGAON, MUMBAI 3.SHIV PRATAP YADAV, S/0 LATE RAJ NATH YADAV AGED ABOUT 46 YRS OCC .IN-CHARGE MINOR AND LP (DTP AND GEM CASES)PRESENTLY WORKING AT COAST GUARD DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS N0.11 (GOA) CHICOLINA, BAGMALO, GOA- 403 806. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF AP 2.B SHANTI, W/0 SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, C-1/6, COAST GUARD QUARTERS, VISHAKAPATNAM. MALKAPURAM, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.S V R SUBRAHMANYAM 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) i 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.857 of 2021 on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka for the offences under Sections 354, 427, 506 and 509 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code^. Heard Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned Additional Solicitor General 2. assisted by Sri Jupudi V.K.Yagnadutt, learned Central Government Counsel for Petitioners, Sri S.V.R.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance. Learned Additional Solicitor General would submit that the Petitioners 3. herein are the Coast Guard Officers and Respondent No.2 herein is the wife of a Civilian Officer. It is further submitted that the present complaint has been lodged after 3 months of the alleged incident. It is submitted that. based on the complaint lodged by the Respondent No.2, a case in Crime No. 140 of 2017 has been registered against Accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences under Sections 354, 427, 506 and 509 read with 120B IPC on the file of Malkapuram L&O Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, wherein, the Police filed final report by referring the case as ‘false’. Aggrieved thereby. Respondent No.2 filed a protest petition and without there being any 1 for short‘Cr.P.C’ 2 for short IPC’ m 3 additional material, the Court has taken cognizance on the offences against the Petitioners. It is further submitted that the trial Court has not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 200 Cr.P.C for taking cognizance of the case based on a protest petition. It is submitted that Accused No.2 retired from services in May, 2023 and because of the present case, he is getting provisional pension only and the promotion of Accused No.1 is deferred. It is further submitted that the present proceedings are barred under Section 122 of the Coast Guard Act, 1978. Learned Additional Solicitor General would finally submit that the Petitioners are falsely implicated in the present case based on the false and frivolous allegations. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that the husband of Respondent No.2 is a Gazetted Civilian Officer and they were allotted a quarter in Indian Coast Guard District Head Quarters, Malkapuram. Learned counsel would further submit that, the Petitioners being the residents of the same township quarters, with a view to drive them away from the quarters. damaged the car of Respondent No.2 and also committed several offences against them. Accused No.4, who is the wife of Petitioner/Accused No.2 used to quarrel with Respondent No.2, who is working as an Accountant in the Coast Guard. Though Respondent No.2 lodged complaint against the Petitioners, the Police did not take any action. Learned counsel would 4 further submit that the Accused got issued memos to the husband of It is submitted that the sworn Respondent No.2 one after the other. statements of Respondent No.2 and the other witnesses were also recorded and they are also filed before this Court. Learned counsel would finally submit that, there are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. In reply, learned Additional Solicitor General would submit that, in the 5. sworn statements, the incident happened in the year 2016 were mentioned. In support of his contentions, the learned Additional Solicitor General has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.R.Sukumar vs. S.Sunaad Raghuram^ and Pradeep S. Wodeyar vs. The State of Karnataka‘S. Point for Determination Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing 6. both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C. C. No. 857 of 2021 on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka? Determination by the Court A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to 7. make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the ^ (2015) 9 see 609 " eriminal Appeal Nos.1288 of 2021 & Batch, dated 29.11.2021 3 Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends ofjustice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. This is a case, wherein. Respondent No.2 alleged that Accused No.1, who is a Commanding Officer, Coast Guard, Malkapuram Base, having conspired with Accused Nos.2 to 7 showed bias, raised various false allegations against her and her husband B.Satyanarayana, who is working as a Gazetted Civilian Officer in Indian Coast Guard at Malkapuram Base and harassed them mentally. Accused No.1 uttered in foul language against Respondent No.2, supported Accused No.2 who is the wife of Accused No.2 in raising disputes, threatened to kill her and Accused Nos.6 and 7 damaged her car by marking scratches. 8. 9. Based on the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2, a case in Crime No. 140 of 2017 has been registered against Accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences under Sections 354, 427, 506 and 509 read with 120B I PC on the file of Malkapuram L&O Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. The Police, after due investigation, filed a final report dated 23.08.2017 stating that. Respondent No.2 is in the habit of raising disputes with all the neighbours for trivial issues and file petitions against them to the Authorities. It is further \ M 6 V stated that, the Board which was appointed to resolve the issues, also found fault with Respondent No.2. Having found that there was no evidence in support of the allegation of scratching her car and threatening to her family members, the Board of enquiry also issued a notice to the husband of Respondent No.2. In such circumstances, the Police, having found no prima facie material against the Petitioners, referred the said crime as ‘false’. A bare perusal of the material placed on record would show that, in 10. view of the conduct of Respondent No.2 herein, a notice dated 16.03.2017 was issued to her husband by the Lt.Colonel, Accommodation Officer, demanding them to vacate the Coast Guard accommodation allotted to them. Subsequent to the said notice, i.e., after more than three months, a complaint has been lodged against all the Accused. It is contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the present proceedings are barred under Section 122 of the Coast Guard Act, 1978. At this stage, for ready reference, it is apposite to extract Section 122 of the Act, which reads as under. “122. Protection for acts of members of the Coast Guard - (1) In any suit or proceeding against any member of the Coast Guard for any act done by him in pursuance of a warrant or order of a competent authority, it shall be lawful for him to plead that such act was done by him under the authority of such warrant or order. Any such plea may be proved by the production of the warrant or order directing the act, and if it is so proved, the member of the Coast Guard shall thereupon be discharged from (2) V If liability in respect of the act so done by him, notwithstanding any defect in the jurisdiction of the authority which issued such warrant or order. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any legal proceeding (whether civil criminal) which may lawfully be brought against any member of the Coast Guard for anything done or intended to be done under the powers conferred by, or in pursuance of any provision of this Act or the rules, shall be commenced within three months after the act complained of was committed and not otherwise, and notice in writing of such proceeding and of the cause thereof shall be given to the defendant or his superior officer at least month before the commencement of such proceeding. ” (3) or one I 11. In the case on hand, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint after three months of the alleged incident that too, without there being any notice to the higher authorities of the Petitioners with regard to initiation of criminal proceedings against them. Therefore, it is clear that. Respondent No.2 has not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 122 of the Coast Guard Act, 1978. As such, the present complaint is barred under the said provision. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the allegations leveled against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 are bald and omnibus and no prime facie case is made out against them for the offences alleged against them. In such circumstances, continuation of proceedings A/-" against the Petitioners is a sheer abuse of process of law and therefore, it is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.857 of 2021 the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka for the offences under Sections 354, 427, 506 and 509 read with 13. on 120BIPC. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ' SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To. 1. The HI Additional Visakhapatnam District. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, 2. The Station House Visakhapatnam City. 3. One CC to Sri Jupudi V K [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri S V R 5. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, Amaravati [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies Officer, Malkapuram L & O Police Station Yagnadutt (Central Government Counsel) Subrahmanyam Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh at BSV vna 9 HIGH 0QURT V f pATED;21/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.6122 of 2022 5 18 FEB 20?5 ns s. * Current oecuon . ^ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION