IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY. THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8572 OF 2022 Between: 1. Patan Noorjahan @ Noorjan(A-2), W/o Subhan Khan @ Subhan, Aged 36 years, Muslim, House wife, R/o 2nd Cross Road, Mandi Mohalla, Near Anjuman Building, Mysuru, Sate of Karnataka. 2. Sayed Meharunnisa (A-3), W/o Sayed Abdul Sattar, Aged 63 years, Muslim, House wife, R/o 8-10, Gangapalem Village, Velluguvari Palem post, Thallur Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Petitioner/Accused 2 & 3 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (Complainant) Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,' Through S.H.O, Thallur Police station, Prakasam District. 2. Patan Khairunnisa - (Defacto-Complainant), S/o Lalu Pathan, Aged 31 years. House wife, Muslim, R/o Gangapalem Village, Velluguvari Palem post, Thallur Mandal, Prakasam District ...Respondents/Complainant & Defacto Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.311 of 2022 on the file of Court of the Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi, Prakasam District. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings, consequent to the charge sheet filed in CC.No.311 of 2022 on the file of Court of the Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi, Prakasam District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 The Court made the following: 1 APHC010584862022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8572/2022 Between: Patan Noorjahan Noorjan and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused{S): 1.SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S); 1 .PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 Dr.VJPJ, CrI.P.No. 8572/2022 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8572/2022 ORDER; The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 2 & 3, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in CC.No.311 of 2022 on the file of Court of Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi, Prakasam District for the offence punishable under Sections 354-A & 506 r/w 34 of IPC. 2. Heard Sri S.Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Notice is served on the respondent No.2. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that a false case has been lodged against the petitioners/A2 and A3 only as an arm-twist to bend the petitioners and A1 to the tunes of respondent No.2. Learned Counsel would further submit that even on the face of it, if the allegations are considered as true, no offence is made out against the petitioners/A2 and A3 much less Section 354-A and 506 of IPC. Learned Counsel for the petitioners finally prays for quashment of the case against the petitioners/A2 and A3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and would 4. submit that there are allegations made against A-2 and A-3 in the charge 3 Dr.VJPJ, CrI.P.No. ,?S11I1012 ^ sheet. Determination by the Court: A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages 5. 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. In State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others^the Hon’ble 6. 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 1 AIR 1992 SC 604 4 Dr.VJPJ, CrI.P.No. 8572/2022 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 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 5 Dr.VJPJ, CrI.P.No. ,2S12I2Q22 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 maiiciously 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) A keen perusal of the report which was submitted to the Police would 7. disclose the intention of the complainant in lodging this Case. The charge sheet shows no semblance for invocation of Section 354-A IPC. Next, it is beneficial to refer the decision of theHon’bleApex Court in Manik Taneja Vs.State of Karnataka^,wherein it is held that mere expression of any words without any intention to cause harm would not be sufficient to apply Section 506 of the IPC. The threat must be with intention to cause harm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Coming to the case of A-2 and A-3, for the offence under Section 506 also there are no such allegations. ^(2015) 7 see 423 6 Dr.VJPJ, CrI.P.No. .2S12I2022 8. In view of the above discussion, and the guidelines prescribed in Bhajanlal’s case (supra), this Court is of the view that continuation of prosecution against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 is an abuse of process of law and thus, interference of this Court is warranted by exercising the jurisdictionof this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The Case pending against the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 in CC.No.311 of 2022 on the file of Court of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi, Prakasam District is hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// p/ St SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Civil Judge [Junior Division]-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi, Prakasam District. 2. The Station House Officer, Thallur Police Station, Prakasam District 3. One CC to Sri S Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies MV sree w HIGH COURT DATED: 11/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.8572 of 2022 g 2 5 MAR »25 ^ ^ . Current Section ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION