1 DR.VJPJ, Crl.P.No. 7088 of 2022 APHC010451832022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7088/2022 Between: M. Guru Prasad ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 DR.VJPJ, Crl.P.No. 7088 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7088/2022 ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1312 of 2022 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Chittoor. 2. Heard Sri A.Syam Sunder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State/respondent No.1. Notice was served on the respondent No.2, none appeared. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the criminal case against the petitioner is a retaliatory action stemming from a complaint made by the petitioner against the husband of respondent No. 2. The complaint, which was submitted on 13.03.2022, highlighted alleged misconduct by the respondent No. 2's husband, who worked as a Digital Assistant in the Grama Sachivalayam, Tirumalarajapuram. The complaint was later forwarded to various authorities, including the Chief Secretary of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the District Collector, and the M.P.D.O. of Palasamudram Mandal. The petitioner’s counsel asserts that the complaint was lodged as a form of whistleblowing, aimed at bringing attention to the wrongful acts of public servants in the area. Learned counsel contends that, in response to the petitioner's complaint, the respondent No. 2 filed the present case on 25.06.2022, suggesting it was filed as a counterblast after the respondent 3 DR.VJPJ, Crl.P.No. 7088 of 2022 became aware of the petitioner’s actions. Additionally, the petitioner is described as a social activist and whistleblower, who regularly reports the wrongful acts of public servants. It is alleged that the complainant claims the petitioner threatened and abused respondent No. 2 during a visit to the petitioner’s house. However, the counsel argues that these allegations are fabricated and not true. Learned counsel concludes by asserting that the charges against the petitioner are baseless and that continuing the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of legal process. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and would submit that the contentions raised in the present petition is a matter of trial. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the petition. Determination by the Court: 5. 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 make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. 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. 4 DR.VJPJ, Crl.P.No. 7088 of 2022 6. In State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others1the Hon’ble Apex Court at paras 102 and 103 laid down following guidelines: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 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 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 1 AIR 1992 SC 604 5 DR.VJPJ, Crl.P.No. 7088 of 2022 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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” (emphasis supplied) 7. In Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand and others2the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para No.12 held as follows: “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the 2 (2013) 11 SCC 673 6 DR.VJPJ, Crl.P.No. 7088 of 2022 nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” (emphasis supplied) 8. TheHon’bleApex Court in Manik Taneja v.State of Karnataka3held that mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to apply Section 506 of the IPC. The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. 9. Considering the submissions made and on a fair look at the material placed on the record, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner herein made a complaint against the husband of the respondent No.2 dated 13.06.2022 highlighting his mischievous acts, while in the public Office. It is also not in dispute the said complaint is posted vide postal receipts dated 17.06.2022 to the respondent authorities and acknowledgments to that effect are also placed before this Court. Nothing has been placed before this Court contradicting the said facts. Be that as it may, the present case, is lodged against the petitioner on 25.06.2022 which supports the version that respondent No.2 and her husband immediately after coming to know about the complaint made by the petitioner against them visited the house of the 3(2015) 7 SCC 423 7 DR.VJPJ, Crl.P.No. 7088 of 2022 petitioner. It is not the case that the petitioner has come to the place of complainant i.e., respondent No.2 and insulted her modesty by words or gestures or threatened them with dire consequences. 10. In the backdrop of the legal positions referred to supra, coming to the factual matrix of the present case, it is vivid that only to avert the complaint which is alleged against them, respondent No.2 and her husband lodged this case against the petitioner. The material placed on record, does not show any verifiable things to proceed further in this matter against the petitioner. In that view, continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner is sheer abuse of process of law. 11. In the result, the Criminal petition is allowed. The Case pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.1312 of 2022 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Chittoor is hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 18.02.2025 UPS 8 DR.VJPJ, Crl.P.No. 7088 of 2022 82 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.7088 of 2022 Dt.18.02.2025 UPS