APHC010525092021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 166/2022 Between: 1. DASYAM SUBHASINI, W/O MADHUSUDHANA RAO, AGED. 53 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 9-261, CBM COMPOUND, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. DASYAM DHANURBHA, D/O MADHUSUDHANA RAO, AGED. 27 YEARS, OCC. RESEARCH SCHOLOR, ANDHRA UNIVERSITY, R/O D.NO. 9-261, CBM COMPOUND, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH SHO, III TOWN POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP.BY IT'S PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT AMARAVATI. 2. MEESALA DEEPAK, S/O LATE SHYAM KUMAR, AGED. 26 YEARS, R/O D.NO.20-92-10, KOTTA RELLI STREET, NEAR DURGA TEMPLE, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. K JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. GOLI GANESH VENKATA SATYA SAI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 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 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S.C.No.131 of 2021 on the file of the 1 For short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 Court of XI Additional District Judge-cum-Special Court for SC & ST Cases, Visakahpatnam for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 509 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code2 and Section 3 (1) (g) (r) (s) read with 3 (2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 20153. 2. Heard Sri K.Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. In spite of providing sufficient opportunity, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 did not turn up to submit arguments. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners have not committed any offence much less the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that, in fact, Respondent No.2 and his men abused Petitioner/Accused No.1 in filthy language and as such, Accused No.1 lodged a complaint dated 27.08.2020 with the Commission of Police, Visakhapatnam and as a counterblast to the said complaint, the present complaint has been lodged against Petitioners with false and frivolous allegations. Learned counsel would further submit that Petitioner/Accused No.2 is an unmarried woman and has been pursuing Ph.D and she has been dragged into the case unnecessarily. Learned counsel would finally submit that there are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners. 2 For short ‘I.P.C’ 3 For short ‘SCST Act’ 3 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners. The truthfulness of the said allegations will be revealed during trial. At this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be quashed. There are absolutely no grounds to quash the case against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 5. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C.No.131 of 2021 on the file of the Court of XI Additional District Judge-cum-Special Court for SC & ST Cases, Visakahpatnam? 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 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 4 reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 7. 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 of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others4 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 AIR 1992 SC 604 5 (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. 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) 8. In the case on hand, it is alleged in the complaint that, Respondent No.2 had taken the shop of Petitioners on rent of Rs.16,000/- per month and also paid advance amount of Rs.50,000/- to them and entered into an agreement. While so, one of the workers of his shop namely Sairaj got electrocuted, Respondent No.2 reported the same to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, who are the owners of the said shop. On that the Petitioners along with their 6 cousin abused him and his sister in the name of their caste. On that, Respondent No.2 informed the Petitioners that he would vacate the shop and asked them to return the advance amount, for which, the Petitioners had been postponing the same on one pretext or the other. On 26.08.2020 at about 3.30 p.m., when Respondent No.2 along with his sister went to the shop and found the articles in their shop missing. When they enquired the same with the Petitioners, they again abused him and his sister by touching her caste. Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.635 of 2020 on the file of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City has been registered against the Petitioners for the offences under Sections 448, 379 and 509 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(g)(r)(s) read with 3(2) (va) of SCST Act. The Police, after due investigation, filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 448, and 509 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(g)(r)(s) read with 3(2) (va) of SCST Act. 9. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gara Yesobu vs. State of A.P.,5, wherein, it was held as follows: "As rightly contended by Sri E.V.Bhagiratha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No. 3342 of 2005 (i.e., A63 to A.66) the charge is bald and does not state who among the 66 persons named as accused uttered the offending words or which of the accused said what words and/or their overt acts. A plain reading of the charge sheet shows that all the accused abused the alleged Victims. As rightly contended by the learned counsel, it is not possible to believe that all the accused, in chorus could have uttered the same words at the same time. So prima facie prosecution for an offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act is an abuse of process of law." 5 2005 (1) ALT (Crl.) 213 (AP) 7 10. In the case on hand, the contents of the complaint and the charge sheet would disclose that, there was a rental agreement between Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner/Accused No.1 with regard to a shop situated at D.No.9-26- 1, Opposite Maharashtra Kalyanamandapam. On 12.03.2020, there arose a dispute between Respondent No.2 and the Petitioners with regard to the sufferance of one of the workers of the shop of Respondent No.2 due to electrocution. Though it is alleged against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 that they both along with their cousin abused Respondent No.2 and his sister by touching their caste, the complaint does not disclose as to who among them uttered the offending words or which of the Accused said what words and/or their overt acts. Therefore, it is not possible to believe that all of them, in chorus could have uttered the same words at the same time. As such, it can be said that there are no ingredients to attract the offence under Section 3 (1) (g) (r) (s) read with 3 (2) (va) of SCST Act against Petitioner/Accused No.2. So far as the offences under Sections 448 and 509 IPC are concerned, there are no allegations against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in specific to attract the ingredients of the said offences. However, there are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 with regard to the commission of the offences under Sections 448 and 509 IPC and Section 3 (1) (g) (r) (s) read with 3 (2) (va) of SCST Act. 11. As per the 1st guideline in Bhajanlal’s case (supra), the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a 8 case against the Petitioner/Accused No.2, who is the daughter of the Petitioner/Accused No.1. In view of the fact that the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is an unmarried girl and has been pursuing her studies, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.2. However, in view of the presence of specific allegations against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 and they have to be decided during trial before the trial Court, the case against her cannot be quashed at this stage. 12 . Accordingly, the criminal petition is partly allowed and the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.2 in S.C.No.131 of 2021 on the file of the Court of XI Additional District Judge-cum-Special Court for SC & ST Cases, Visakahpatnam for the offences under Sections 448 and 509 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (g) (r) (s) read with 3 (2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, are hereby quashed. The petition against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is hereby dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:09.01.2025 Dinesh 9 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.166 of 2022 Dt.09.01.2025 Dinesh