1 APHC010502102021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7490/2021 Between: Sri Adusumilli Venkat Siva Suresh, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. M E CHANDRA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. A.SAI ROHIT 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.,) has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.4305 of 2022 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The de-facto complainant presented a report before the Police stating that she purchased a plot in 1970, built a three-floored house, and has lived there with her grandson, Dr. Rahul Prasad, since her husband's dead in 2003. Her elder son, A.V.S. Suresh, showed no concern for her or his elder son, Dr. Rahul, while residing in Hyderabad with his second wife, Subhasini, and their son, Rakesh. (ii) In April 2021, Suresh and Subhasini visited Visakhapatnam, claiming they wished to spend time with her. Trusting them, she allowed them to stay. However, after three months, they demanded a share in the property, which she refused. In August 2021, Suresh filed a civil suit (O.S. No. 186/2021) for partition. He and his wife then began harassing her, restricting her movements, and threatening her to sign documents. Despite warnings, they unlawfully stayed in the house, intimidating her and worsening her health. When Dr. Rahul and his wife intervened, they were warned not to interfere. Hence, the complainant, an 85-year-old senior citizen with health issues, 3 requested the Police to provide protection and take necessary legal action against A.V.S.Suresh and his wife Smt Subhasini for criminal trespass, extortion, wrongful confinement, and intimidation. (ii) Basing on her report, the Police registered a case in Crime No.378 of 2021 for the offences under Section 448, 342, 506 r/w 34 IPC. 3. Heard Sri B.Pavan, learned counsel representing Sri M.E.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st petitioner is the son of the complainant and 2nd petitioner is the daughter-in-law and they along with their family members had been living together jointly for several years. Hence, the question of trespass into the house at any point of time does not arise. The petitioners never demanded the delivery of house documents nor insisted the complainant to sign on any documents. He further submits that the 1st petitioner filed civil suit vide O.S.No.187 of 2021 seeking partition and separate possession. To avoid partition and as a counter blast to the partition suit, the complainant filed the present complaint. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State and Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that there are specific allegations made against the petitioners. The truth, or otherwise, of the said allegations will be revealed during the course 4 of the trial. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners, at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Having heard both sides, now the point that would emerge for determination is: ‘Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.4305 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam?’ 7. 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. 8. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State 5 of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others1 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows : “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 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 1 AIR 1992 SC 604 6 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.” 9. On perusal of the material available on record, the allegations made in the charge sheet are serious in nature that the petitioners who are none other than the son and the daughter-in-law of the de facto complainant, for the sake of share in the property, has insisted the de facto complainant to sign on the documents and when she refused to do so they have wrongfully confined her in a room and also threatened with dire consequences. 10. In view of the submissions made, the contentions of the petitioners referred supra are matter of trial. This is not the stage to decide the truth or otherwise of the contentions raised in the present petition. This Court while 7 exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot conduct a mini trial to rule out the role of the Petitioners and their involvement in the present crime. Truth or otherwise of such contentions cannot be decided at this stage. Without causing any prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Petitioners and as the allegations prima facie suffice and require full length of trial, petition deserves dismissal. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dt.10.02.2025 JLV