APHC010423752021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6169/2021 Between: Bagadi Seshagirirao Alias Seshu, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. M LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 VS,J Crlp_6169_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.213 of 2021 on the file of Tekkali Police Station, Srikakulam District. 2. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.3 to 9 and 11 to 22. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant, who is working as Village Revenue Officer. On 02.11.2021, the 2nd respondent herein has submitted a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tekkali Police Station stating that on 02.11.2021 at around 03.00 p.m., while the 2nd resondent was performing his duties opposite to the APSRTC Depot, at the lower side of Jagathimetta flyover, some people on two wheelers, cars etc., were coming towards Tekkali village while blowing loud horns as if it is a group rally and were using loud sound systems. It is further stated that the accused have also attended the said rally. Some of them were holding flag sticks belonging to the Telugu Desam Party in their hands. They were also making loud slogans. As such, the police officers who were on duty requested few of the persons not to interrupt the traffic, motorists, commuters and travellers and further instructed them that the rally should not violate Covid-19 Rules. In spite of the said request, they did not follow the said instrutions and rode their vehicles negligently to reach Indiramma Junction and Ambedkar Junction. They further proceeded with the rally by jamming the road from Nandhigam to Srikakulam for about 15 minutes. At that juncture, the aforsaid persons disrupted an A/C Garuda bus bearing No.AP31Z0326 and other vehicles carrying passengers. 3. At that time, the Police (Circule Inspector, Tekkali and Sub- Inspector of Police, Kotabommali) stated with Kinjarapu Achennaidu that no permission was sought from the concerned authorities and that they are not wearing masks keeping in view the rapid rampant of Covid-19 pandemic, that they are violating the rules, transgressing the traffic rules and using loud speakers, which is not a proper procedure; thus requested to disperse and 3 VS,J Crlp_6169_2021 leave the place at once. Subsequent to the same, the said Kinjarapu Achennaidu has threatened the Police that if they interrupt with the said rally, he would sit on the NH-16. Stating thus, the 2nd respondent has requested the Police to take appropriate action. Upon receipt of the said complaint, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.213 of 2021 on the file of Tekkali Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 279, 283 read with 149 of IPC and under Section 8(B) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and under Sections 129, 190(2), 119/184, 122 read with 177 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Seeking to quash the said proceedings, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues that the petitioners were falsely implicated in the present crime though they have not committed any offence much less as alleged by the defacto complainant. There are no specific allegations constituting offences under Sections 143, 341, 279, 283 read with 149 of IPC and under Section 8(B) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and under Sections 129, 190(2), 119/184, 122 read with 177 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. All the allegations made against the petitioners herein are vague, unsubstantiated and unfounded. In the absence of specific allegations against the petitioners herein, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of Court. Hence, requested to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioners would constitute offence punishable under Sections 143, 341, 279, 283 read with 149 of IPC and under Section 8(B) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and under Sections 129, 190(2), 119/184, 122 read with 177 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 4 VS,J Crlp_6169_2021 6. When the criminal petition came up for hearing on 10.11.2021, this Court has passed the following interim order: “…There shall be stay of all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners in Crime no.213/2021 of Tekkali Police Station, Srikakulam District, until further orders.” 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.213 of 2021 on the file of Tekkali Police Station, Srikakulam 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 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: 5 VS,J Crlp_6169_2021 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, 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 1AIR 1960 SC 866 6 VS,J Crlp_6169_2021 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. (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 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 VS,J Crlp_6169_2021 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 petitioners herein are alleged to have participated in a rally by blowing loud horns while using vehicles and also by using loud sound systems. It can also be seen from the complaint that around 1000 to 1200 persons have participated in the said rally and that the petitioners are among them. It was also alleged that the petitioners herein were making loud slogans by holding flag sticks. As the petitioners herein are alleged to have violated Motor Vehicles Act and Rules by causing trouble to general public, seizing the routes in which general people were passing by without obtaining any permission from the concerned authorities, the Village Revenue Officer has filed the present complaint as against the petitioners herein. 14. Allegedly, around 1000 to 1200 people have participated in the said rally, but, there is no proof that the petitioners are the ones who raised slogans, carried flag sticks and have disrupted the ongoing traffic. If the allegations made in the complaint are taken on their face value, prima facie they do not constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioners herein. As per the principle No.1 of the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (3rd Supra) when 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, 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. 8 VS,J Crlp_6169_2021 15. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.213 of 2021 on the file of Tekkali Police Station, Srikakulam District are hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners only. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 25.02.2025 SRT