IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY. THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8757 OF 2022 Between: 1. Gokaraju Rama Raju, S/o.Ganga Raju, aged 55 years, Kshatriya, Secretary, ASRAM Educational Society, ASRAM Medical College, Malkapuram Village, Eluru Mandal, R/o.Elurupadu Village, Kalla Mandal. 2. K.Anji Reddy, S/o.Veera Reddy, aged 80 years, Reddy, Medical Director, ASRAM Hospital and College, Malkapuram Village, Eluru Mandal. 3. K.Hanumantha Rao, S/o.K.V.Raghavaiah, aged 61 years, Kamma, Chief Administrative Officer, ASRAM Medical College and Hospital, Malkapuratn Village, Eluru Mandal. 4. K.Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o.Tirupathi Rao, aged 72 years, Sista Karanam, Principal, ASRAM Medical College, Malkapuram Village, Eluru Mandal. 5. Sanam Vijaya Mohan Rao, S/o.Late Rama Rao, aged 72 years, Telaga, Superintendent, ASRAM Hospital, Malkapuram Village, Eluru Mandal. ...Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 5 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Amaravati. 4 2. Kancherla Mahesh Babu, Natani, aged 30 years, SC-Mala, R/o. Peddalingampadu Village, Bhimadole Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents/Complainant Petition filed 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 call for the records relating to SPL SC. No.121 of 2021 on the file of the Hon'ble Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs. & STs. (POA) Act - cum - VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru and quash the same. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including the appearance of the petitioners in SPL. SC No.121 of 2021 on the file of the Hon'ble Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs. & STs. (POA) Act - cum -VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, Senior Advocate representing Sri N.Naveen Kumar, Advocate, for Petitioners and Smt K.Priyanka Lakshmi, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No.1 and of Sri Ramakrishna Akurathi, Advocate for Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010595642022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8757/2022 Between: 1.GOKARAJU RAMA RAJU, S/0 GANGA RAJU, AGE. 55 YEARS, KSHATRIYA, SECRETARY, ASRAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, ASRAAM MEDICAL COLLEGE, MALKAPURAM VILLAGE, ELURU MANDAL. R/0 ELURUPADU VILLAGE, KALLA MANDAL 2.K. ANJI REDDY,, S/0 VEERA REDDY, AGE. 80 YEARS, REDDY, MEDICAL DIRECTOR, ASRAM HOSPITAL AND COLLEGE, MALKAPURAM VILLAGE, ELURU MANDAL 3.K. HANUMANTHA RAO,, S/0 K.V. RAGHAVAIAH, AGE. 61 YEARS, KAMMA, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, ASRAM MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, MALKAPURATN VILLAGE, ELURU MANDAL 4.K. UMA MAHESWARA RAO,, S/0 TIRUPATHI RAO, AGE. 72 YEARS, SISTA KARANAM MALKAPURAM VILLAGE, ELURU MANDAL. 5.SANAM VIJAYA MOHAN RAO, , S/0 LATE RAMA RAO, AGE. 72 SUPERINTENDED, ASRAM HOSPITAL, PRINCIPAL, ASRAM MEDICAL COLLEGE, YEARS, TELAGA, MALKAPURAMVILLAGE,ELURU MANDAL. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED{S) AND REP BY ITS PUBLIC 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PROSECUTOR, HIGH. COURT OF JUDICATURE AT AMARAVATI 2.KANCHERLA MAHESH BABU, NATANI, AGE. 30 YEARS, SC-MALA, RIO PEDDALINGAMPADU VILLAGE, BHIMADOLE MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT{S): Counsel for the Petltioner/accused(S): 1.N NAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI i 2 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in Spl.S.C.No.121 of 2021 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru for the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860^ and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3(2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015^. Heard Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri 2. N.Naveen Kumar and Sri Ramakrishna Akurathi, learned counsel for Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Respondent No.2. Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 is in attendance. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the allegations leveled 3. against the Petitioners are bald and baseless. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, for the first time it is alleged that, on 24.09.2015 when Respondent No.2 questioned about the expiry of antigen kits, he was threatened and abused by the Petitioners in the name of his caste and such allegations were absent in various other complaints filed by Respondent No.2 1 for short‘Cr.P.C’ 2 for short IPC’ 3 for short‘SCST Act’ 3 before various authorities. It is further submitted that, previously, based on the complaint given by Respondent No.2 a case in Crime No.59 of 2017 on the file of Eluru Rural Police Station, West Godavari District was registered against the Petitioners herein for the offence under Section 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(1) (r) (s) of SCSI Act and the Police, after investigation filed a final report referring the case as ‘false’. As such, the present protest petition has been filed by Respondent No.2 by examining 11 witnesses, who were terminated by the Management of ASRAM hospital upon the closure of the Diagnostics Centre. It is submitted that, there is an inordinate delay of approximately two years from the date of alleged incidents and the date of filing of the complaint. Learned Senior Counsel would finally submit that no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners to connect them with the alleged offences. As such, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners Hence, prayed for quashment of the is an abuse of process of law. proceedings against the Petitioners. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another"*, Mohammad Wajid and another vs. State of U.P and others^, Vasanti Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh®, Kishan Singh (dead) through L.Rs vs. Gurpal Singh and others^, State of Andhra Pradesh vs. 2024 see OnLine Se 2248 ^ 2023 see OnLine se 951 ® (2012)2 sec 731 ’ (2010) 8 sec 775 I 4 M.Madhusudhan Rao® and the judgment of Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Punugoti Naga Kiran Kumar vs. State of A.P., and another®. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that, 4. there are specific allegations against the Petitioners and the same have to be decided during trial. At this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. Point for Determination Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both 5. 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/Accused No.1 to 5 in Spl.S.C.No.121 of 2021 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru? Determination by the Court A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages 6. 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 ' (2008) 15 see 582 20l4SeeOnLine AP 1186 5 reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. In the case on hand, admittedly. Respondent No.2 was appointed in 7. ASRAM Educational Society as a part-time Laboratory Assistant on 18.10.2012 and joined as a part-time trainee laboratory assistant on 01.04.2015. It is alleged against the Petitioners that, while Respondent No.2 was working as Lab technician in ASRAM Diagnostic Centre Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 had supplied Anti Gen kit (widal) and having found that the said kit was expired. Respondent No.2 brought the same to the notice of the Petitioners, due to which, having developed grouse against him. the Petitioners abused him in the name of his caste in the presence of his As such. colleagues and also threatened him with dire consequences. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint with the Police, which was registered as a case in Crime No.59 of 2017 for the alleged offences on 07.04.2017. A bare perusal of the material placed on record would disclose that, prior to lodging of the said complaint, there were internal disputes between the 8. Respondent No.2 and the Management of ASRAM educational Society. Based on the complaint given by one Sri K.Sumanth Kumar, the Management had issued a charge memo-cum-show cause notice dated 16.09.2015 to Respondent No.2 with regard to his negligence and inducement behaviour with the patients and his insubordination and careless attitude. On receipt of the same, on 28.09.2015 Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the Management to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Eluru alleging that the 6 Subsequently, on Management had been paying less salary to him. 29.09.2015, having considered the explanation given by Respondent No.2 for the said show-cause notice. Accused No.3, who is the Chief Administrative Officer of ASRAM Education Society had given an opportunity to him to change his behaviour. On 10.10.2015, Accused No.3 had given another charge memo to Respondent No.2 questioning his action in giving a complaint to the Medical Director and in creating unnecessary troubles to the administration by making false allegations. Respondent No.2 gave an evasive explanation for the said notice on 03.11.2015 and also lodged a complaint dated 19.11.2015 with the A.P.State Commissioner for SC & ST Ex Secretary to Government of A.P., against the Management. Subsequently, on 05.05.2016, the Management entered into a compromise with Respondent No.2 herein along with other employees agreeing to enhance the salary of Respondent No.2 and also to absorb him into regular service on the condition that Respondent No.2 shall withdraw all the civil and criminal complaints made to various authorities. Subsequent to the said compromise, on 11.03.2017, the Management discontinued the operations of the Diagnostic Centre and terminated the services of Respondent No.2 herein by paying one month’s salary. Aggrieved thereby, the present complaint was filed by Respondent No.2 on 12.04.2017. As alleged by Respondent No.2, Petitioners said to have committed the alleged offences of criminal intimidation and abusing him in the name of his Whereas, the complaint has been lodged on 9. caste on 24.09.2015. 7 12.04.2017 i.e., approximately after two years of the alleged incident. Aggrieved by the show cause notices issued by the Management and the subsequent termination of Respondent No.2, to wreak vengeance against the Petitioners, the present complaint has been filed with false and frivolous allegations against them. W.P. (PIL) No.171 of 2019 filed by Respondent No.2 on the file of this Court was also dismissed vide Order dated 01.04.2021 on the ground that he has an element of personal interest in the affairs of ASRAM Educational Society and the said application was not filed with public interest. The entire material on record would go to show the conduct and attitude 10. of Respondent No.2 in discharging his duties and in filing false complaints against the Management of ASRAM Educational Society and thereby causing troubles to them. The protest petition has been filed by Respondent No.2 as if it was a first complaint, by inserting certain allegations which were not found place in the earlier complaint lodged by him. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others^^, even if the allegations mentioned in the protest petition are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute the alleged offences against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners. 10 AIR 1992 SC 604 i 8 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 in Spi.S.C.No.121 of 2021 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru for the offence under Section 506 IPC and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3(2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs. & STs (POA) Act - cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru. 2. The Station House Officer, Eluru Rural Police Station, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3. One CC to Sri N Naveen Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Ramakrishna Akurathi Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies BSV vna HIGH COURT DATED:21/01/2025 ORDER 2 0FE8 2025 J ^ . Curreni SMtion ^ CRLP.No.8757 of 2022 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION