APHC010488412022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7362/2022 Between: 1. RACHOOR PHALGUNA KUMAR, S/O R. LAKSHMENDRA KUMAR ( LATE) H.NO.80/76-23-1, NEW KRISHNA NAGAR, OPP.ITC, KURNOOL. 2. RACHOOR PRABHAVATHI, W/O R. LAKSHMENDRA KUMAR ( LATE), H.NO.80/76-23-1, NEW KRISHNA NAGAR, OPP. ITC, KURNOOL. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, AMARAVATI. 2. Y VENKATA NAGI REDDY, S/O Y.NAGESWARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O H.NO.87-1217A, NAGIREDDY REVENUE COLONY, NEAR NANDYAL CHECK POST, KURNOOL TOWN. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. KONDREDDY VAMSI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. P DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2311 of 2021 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool for 1 for short „Cr.P.C‟ 2 the offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 66(D) of Income Tax Act, 2000-2008.2 2. Heard Ms.Y.L.Siva Kalpana Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri K.Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri A.S.K.S.Bhargav, learned counsel representing Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that previously a complaint has been lodged by Respondent No.2 against the Petitioners herein, based on which a case in Crime No.310 of 2016 has been registered and Police, after investigation, having found that the facts of the present case and the case in Crime No.51 of 2015, which was settled before Lok Adalat, are one and the same, referred the present crime as “Action Drop”. Aggrieved thereby, Respondent No.2 filed the protest petition by introducing certain allegations, which are beyond the scope of the allegations of the FIR. Learned counsel would further submit that the learned Magistrate erroneously has taken cognizance of the offences without there being any incriminating material against the Accused. Learned counsel would further submit that as Petitioner/Accused No.3 filed O.S.No.2 of 2015 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Kurnool against the mother of Respondent No.2 for recovery of amount, as a counterblast to the same, the present compliant has been lodged by falsely implicating the Petitioners. Learned counsel would finally 2 for short ‘IT Act’ 3 submit that there are no tenable grounds to continue the proceedings against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in unison, would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners which would attract the offences alleged against them. At this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the T.T.Antony vs. State of Kerala & Others3, Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab & Others4 and AwadeshKumar Jha @ Akilesh Kumar Jha Vs. The State of Bihar5. Point for determination: 5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners in C.C.No.2311 of 2021 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool? Determination by the Court: 6. 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 3 AIR 2001 SC 2637 4 AIR 2009 SC 984 5 AIR 2016 SC 373 4 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 trial court, 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. 7. Respondent No.2 herein, on 12.02.2015 lodged a complaint against the Petitioners herein alleging that in March, 2013, he got acquainted with Petitioner/Accused No.1 through one Gopal Reddy, who was residing in their house. Petitioner/Accused No.3 used to act as a mediator between Accused No.1 and the family of Respondent No.2. Subsequently, as Respondent No.2 wanted to start a business, Petitioner/Accused No.3 asked me through my mother to come and meet Petitioner/Accused No.1 for better guidance as Petitioner/Accused No.1 was studying in US. Respondent No.2 explained the project details to Accused No.1. Thereafter, Accused No.1 informed that he was going to Japan regard the project and got estimation of Rs.27.00 lakhs. The mother of Respondent No.2 had given the amount to the mother of Accused No.1. It is further alleged that, after returning from Japan, Accused No.1 handed over Ikkyu R & O agreement stating that the Company is demanding the balance or else to handover the promissory notes as security. After some time, they have started demanding the amount for one or the other 5 reason. It is alleged that the amounts were handed over to Accused Nos.1 to 3. 8. The material placed on record would clearly show that, based on the above complaint, a case in Crime No.51 of 2015 had been lodged against Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 read with 34 IPC. Subsequently, the said crime was compromised between the parties before Lok Adalat vide Award dated 27.06.2015 in L.A.C.No.673 of 2015. Subsequently, for the reasons best know to him, Respondent No.2, on 02.09.2016 lodged another complaint with the Police, against Accused Nos.1 to 3 on the same set of facts, which was numbered as Crime No.310 of 2016 for the offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 66(D) of I.T.Act. In the said crime, the Police, after due investigation, having found that the said complaint was lodged on the facts of the previous case in Cr.No.51 of 2015, referred the present case in Crime No.310 of 2016 as “Action Drop” and filed a memo to that effect. Having not satisfied with the same, Respondent No.2 filed a protest petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool again on the same set of facts. Having rejected the report of the Police filed in Crime No.310 of 2016, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences against Accused Nos.1 to 3 and numbered the case as C.C.No.2311 of 2021. Against the same, the present petition has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3. 9. Further, Petitioner/Accused No.3 filed O.S.No.2 of 2015 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Kurnool against the mother of Respondent No.2 6 for recovery of amount. It is settled principle that successive FIRs by the same information against the same Accused on the same set of allegations are impermissible and are violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the F.I.R., in question could be termed as a 'second F.I.R' and is not maintainable in law. There is definitely commonality in both the F.I.R.s in Crime No.310 of 2016 and Crime No.51 of 2015 and they emerged from the very same set of circumstances. In such circumstances, C.C.No.2311 of 2021 which was registered based on the same set of facts mentioned in the above FIRs deserves to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 in C.C.No.2311 of 2021 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool for the offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 66(D) of Income Tax Act, 2000-2008. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:07.01.2025 Dinesh 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7362 of 2022 Dt.07.01.2025 Dinesh