APHC010016312022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 197/2022 Between: 1. DR ANJI REDDY MULTI SPECIALTY HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY DR. LOKI REDDY ANJI REDDY MANAGING DIRECTOR MAIN ROAD, PIDUGURALLA TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. LOKIREDDY SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O. ANJI REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,OCC. DOCTOR MANAGING PARTNER OF DR. ANJI REDDY MULTI SPECIALTY HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED. MAIN ROAD, PIDUGURALLA TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. LOKIREDDY SUSHMA REDDY, W/O. SRINIVASA REDDY. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCC. DOCTOR MANAGING PARTNER OF DR. ANJI REDDY MULTI SPECIALTY HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED. MAIN ROAD, PIDUGURALLA TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 4. CHINTHA KRISHNA CHAINTANYA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR, CONSULTANT DOCTOR IN DR.ANJIREDDY MULTI SPECIALTY HOSPITAL MAIN ROAD, PIDUGURALLA TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PIDUGURALLA. 2. KATAKAM VENKATESWARLU, S/O. KOTESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 16-75, KUMMARIPALEM, PIDUGURALLA TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. GANDHAM DURGA BOSE Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.606 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piduguralla, for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 354, 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 51(b) of Disaster Management Act, 2005. 2. Heard Sri Gandham Durga Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioners, and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the complaint does not disclose any offence against the Petitioners. Learned counsel would further submit that, in view of the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C, cognizance cannot be taken for the offence under Section 188 IPC. It is submitted that, absolutely there are no specific allegations in the complaint to attract the offence under Section 506 IPC. Learned counsel would finally submit that continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners to attract the alleged offences and it is not a fit case for quashment. 3 5. As seen from the record, though the complaint was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 354, 420 and 506 IPC and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the summons that were issued to the Petitioners, which are placed on record, prima facie show that the Court has issued the said summons to the Petitioners to answer the charge under Sections 188 and 506 read with 34 IPC only. 6. A bare perusal of Section 195 Cr.P.C makes it clear that, to prosecute a person for the offence punishable under Section 188 IPC, a complaint has to be made by the concerned officer, whose order was violated. Whereas, the instant complaint was not filed by any such officer. Further, to attract the offence under Section 506 IPC, Respondent No.2 is required to prove that the Petitioners had threatened him with injury to his person, reputation or property and that they did so with an intent to cause alarm and to cause Respondent No.2 to perform any act which he is not legally bound to do. The threat should be a real and not just a mere word. Empty threats do not mean that the case under Section 506 IPC is made out. An offence under this Section by words cannot be made out unless it is proved that these words were uttered with specific intention. A reading of the contents of the complaint would show that, except stating that the Petitioners have abused Respondent No.2 in a filthy language, no specific overt act is attributed against the Petitioners to attract the offence under Section 506 IPC. 7. In view of the aforementioned discussion, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no prima facie case is 4 made out against the Petitioners for the alleged offences and hence, the proceedings against Petitioners are liable to be quashed by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings against Petitioners/Accused in C.C.No.606 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piduguralla. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:06.02.2025 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.197 of 2022 Dt.06.02.2025 Dinesh