IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6499 OF 2021 Between: 1. Sri Aravindudu Akula, S/o.Surya Prakasa Rao, age 49 years, Caste - Kapu, R/o. Karumuruvari Street Palakol, West Godavari District 2. Sri Kasi Viswanadam Kommula, S/o.Venkayya Naidu, age 60 years, Caste-Kapu, R/o. Bradipeta, Palakol, West Godavari District. 3. Nageswara Rao Ravi, S/o. Chinna Narasayya, age 66 years, Caste- Mala, Retd. Govt. College Principal, R/o. AVS Colony, Palakol, West Godavari District. 4. Rambabu Maddimsetti, S/o.Satyanarayana, age 50 years, Caste-Kapu, R/o. Bank Street, Palakol, West Godavari District. 5. Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Tammineedi, S/o.Gopala Swamy, age 70 years, Caste-Kamma, R/o. Near Subrahmanyam Swamy Temple, Elamanchili, Palakol, West Godavari District. 6. Ramakrishna Rao Paluri, S/o.Achanna, age 62 years, Caste-Turpu Kapu, R/o. Brodipeta, PALAKOL, West Godavari District. 7. Radha Krishna Srinivas Mannem, S/o. Ganga Rao, Aged 47 years. Caste Kamma, R/o. Mallavaram Village, Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. V - .-3l V. 8. Mohan Seelam, S/o. Satyanarayana, Age 47 years, Caste Kapu, Occ Government Service, R/o. Sugar Colony, Palakol, West Godavari District. 9. Srinivasa Rao Machepalli, S/o. Gopala Krishna, Age 70 years. Caste Vysya, Occ Business, R/o. Venkateswara Colony, Palakol, West Godavari District. Muralikrishna Tammineedi, S/o. Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Age 42 years, Occ Reporter, Caste Kamma, R/o. Karumurivari Street Palakol, West Godavari District. 10. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 to 10 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 2. The Station House Officer, Palakol Town Police Station, PALAKOL, West Godavari District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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 Quash the proceedings in Crime.No.393/2021 of Palakol Town Police' Station, Palakol, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh and pass I.A. NO: 1 OF 2021 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in Crime No 393 of 2021 on the file of the SHO Palakol town Police Station Palkol West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh pending disposal of the above Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Polisetty Radha Krishna, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondent The Court made the following order: APHC010448402021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6499/2021 Between: Sri Aravindudu Akula, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) 2 VS,J Crlp_6499_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.393 of 2021 on the file of Palakol Town Police Station, Palakol, West Godavari District. nd The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 10 and the 2 respondent is the defacto complainant who is the C.l. of Police, Palakol Town Police Station, Palakol, West Godavari District. It is stated in the mediators report dated 24.10.2021 that on 24.10.2021 at 04.30 p.m., in Sri MamidiChinnaVenkataSivaiah Memorial Town Hall, Palakol, Registered no.44/1982, door No.41-2-30&30/1, Anandkumar Road, Palakol at Allu Venkata Satyanarayana Block in Ground floor, 10 persons were playing cards on two tables. Two persons namely Vippaarthi Ramesh and Nalli Jayaraj acted as mediators for the incident that took place in the aforementioned place.lt is stated by the mediators that upon receiving information, the Circle Inspector of Police, Palakok Town Police Station after obtaining search warrant from Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narasapuram, picked the mediators from the Police Station and other staff, went to the aforementioned place where they found 10 persons playing 156 cards and 3 jokers. The mediators, after enquiring all the 10 persons have come to the conclusion that they are playing cards contrary to the Corona restrictions and as such, the C.l. of Police informed them that they are not playing skill game or rummy but they are playing a chance game and has issued notice under Section 41(A). Basing on the said report dated 24.10.2021, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.393 of 2021 on the file of Palakol Town Police Station, Palakol, West Godavari District for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act, 1974. Seeking to quash the said proceedings all the accused have filed the present petition. 2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the contents -of the complaint and argued that as per Section 3. 3 VS,J Crlp_6499_2021 2(1)(ii) of the Gaming Act, a person who is organizing the common gaming house should necessarily use the same for the profit or gain for owning, occupying, using or keeping such house, room tent, etc., by way of charging money for the use of such house, room, tent, enclosure etc., from the players, but, whereas the same profit or gain is not required in the event if the premises of gaming is a club, society, company or other associations of persons on account thereof. In the instant case, it was clearly stated in the FIR that the town hall on which raid was conducted belongs to the petitioners they are life members of the same. Nowhere in the FIR it was stated that the 1®* petitioner is organizing the town hall as a common gaming house for profit or gain for owning, occupying, using or keeping such house etc., by way of charging money. As such, the question of charging the petitioners under the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Gaming Act does not arise. Even a judgment of the Apex Court in LdlitdKumBri Vs. Government of Utter Pradesh and others^ the 2'^'^ respondent should have registered the FIR immediately upon receipt of information about the alleged offence against the petitioners but not after the raid and drafting of mediators report. As such, the case in Crime No.393 of 2021 is liable to be quashed. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioners would constitute offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act, 1974,therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. as as per 4. 5. When the criminal petition came up for hearing on 24.11.2021, this Court has passed the following interim order; “....there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings In Cr.No.393/2021 of Palakollu Town Police Station, West Godavari District.” ^ (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1 4 VS,J Crlp_6499_2021 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 considerationis as follows: “Whether the proceedings against the petitioners in F.I.R.No.393 of 2021 on the file of Palakol Town Police Station, Palakol, West Godavari District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 7. 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. 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 Punjab^’’, the Apex Court laid down the following principles: 8. ^AIR 1960 SC 866 5 VS,J Crlp_6499_2021 (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 ofjustice; (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; (Hi) 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. 9. 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 justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar^” ^ AIR 1990 SC 494 6 VS,J Crlp_6499_2021 10. In "State of Haryana v. BhajanLat" 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 High Courts in exercise of their inherent by powers to quash a criminal complaint: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and or the 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 any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose materials, if a cognizable offence, justifying investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code an 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 vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 11. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. " 1992 Supp(l) see 335 7 VS,J Crlp_6499_2021 On a perusal of the material available on record, it can be seen that on 24.10.2021 at about 04.30 p.m., the Police have conducted a search, prepared a mediators report and basing on the same, an FIR was filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act, 1974. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners sought attention of this Court to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others (1®^ supra) wherein it is held in paragraph No.119 as under: 12. \ “Therefore, in view of various counterclaims regarding registration or non registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible, etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filign a false FIR.” It can be understood from the above that if the information provided to the Police clearly indicates the commission of a cognizable offence, then the registration of FIR is mandatory. If the information does not reveal a cognizable offence, the police may conduct a preliminary inquiry to verify whether such an offence has occurred before deciding whether FIR has to be registered or not. If they find that the information received is not credible, then there is an option to prosecute the complainant for giving false information. 13. 8 VS,J Crlp_6499_2021 14. As per Section 5(1) of A.P. Gaming Act, 1974, every offence under the said Act is cognizable and non-bailable. Hence, as per the aforesaid judgment, the Police, immediately after receipt of information with regard to the petitioners, should have mandatorily filed an FIR, but instead of doing so, the Police, after obtaining warrant from the Deputy Superintendent of Police have conducted the search at 05.00 p.m., and basing on the mediators report, registered a case against the petitioners, which action is against the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court. On this ground alone, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 15. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in F.I.R.No.393 of 2021 on the file of Palakol Town Police Station, Palakol. West Godavari District are hereby quashed against the petitioners. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI^ OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Palakol Town Police Station, Palakol, West Godavari District 2. One CC to Sri. Polisetty Radha Krishna Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh[OUT] 4. Three CD Copies vna HIGH COURT DATED : 17/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.6499 of 2021 I 2 J MAR 2025 vv Currem oecuon . f KS- ALLOWING THE CRLP