IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY / TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10231 OF 2022 Between; 1. Gandham Anvesh, S/o. Joseph, Aged about 33 years, R/o. Flat No.111, Floor, Sasmsthitha Apartment, Gorantia, Guntur Rural Mandal, 2nd Guntur. 2. Gandham Joseph, S/o. Dougles, Aged about 62 years, R/o. Flat No.111, 2 Mandal, Guntur. 3. Gandham Jhansi Rani, W/o. Joseph, Aged about 57 years, R/o. R/o. Flat No.111, 2"^^ Floor, Sasmsthitha Apartment, Gorantia, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur. 4. Gandham Anitha (correct name is Gandham Anusha), W/o. Kalyan Kumar Pagidipalli, D/o. Gandham Joseph, aged about 36 years, R/o. H.No.192, Main Road, Ipur, Guntur District, Now in Riyadh of Saudi Arabia. nd Floor, Sasmsthitha Apartment, Gorantia, Guntur Rural ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 to 4 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. 2. Didia Navya, D/o. Sarath, Aged about 31 years, R/o. Sivareddypalem, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur. ...RESPONDENTS/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 proceedings in PRC. 122 of • 2022 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1 1 Class, Guntur. I.A. NO: 2 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 all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in PRC. 122 of 2022 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1®* Class, Guntur. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri K.L.N. Swamy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER: St / APHC010695732022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY i [3396] ^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10231/2022 Between: 1.GANDHAM ANVESH, S/0. JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/0. FLAT NO. 111 GORANTLA, GUNTUR RURAL MANDAL, GUNTUR. 2.GANDHAM JOSEPH, S/0. DOUGLES, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/0. FLAT N0.111, 2ND FLOOR, SASMSTHITHA APARTMENT, GORANTLA, GUNTUR RURAL MANDAL, GUNTUR. 3.GANDHAM JHANSI RANI, W/0. JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/0. R/0. FLAT N0.111, 2ND FLOOR, SASMSTHITHA APARTMENT, GORANTLA, GUNTUR RURAL MANDAL, GUNTUR. 4.GANDHAM ANITHA (CORRECT NAME IS GANDHAM ANUSHA),, W/0. KALYAN KUMAR PAGIDIPALLI, D/0. GANDHAM JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/0. H.N0.192, MAIN ROAD, IPUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, NOW IN RIYADH OF SAUDI ARABIA. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) 2ND FLOOR, SASMSTHITHA APARTMENT AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI. 2.DIDLA NAVYA, D/0. SARATH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/0. SIVAREDDYPALEM, GUNTUR RURAL MANDAL, GUNTUR. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.KLNSWAMY The Court made the following: © h 2 ORDER: The instant petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ have been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in P.R.C.No.122 of 2022 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur for the offences under Sections 376, 417 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 18601 2. Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri K.L.N.Swamy, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that, there is a delay of seven months in giving the complaint. Learned counsel would further submit that because of the conduct of Respondent No.2 the Petitioners refused for the marriage. It is submitted that Respondent No.2 had addressed a letter to the Police requesting to see that her marriage be performed with Accused No.1. Learned counsel would submit that, it is a case of love and break up and Accused No.1 never intended to cheat Respondent No.2 from the inception. It is further submitted that the statement of Respondent No.2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C has not been recorded. Learned counsel would submit that, Petitioner/Accused No.4, who is the married sister of Accused No.1 has been residing in Saudi Arabia and Petitioner/Accused No.2 died. Learned counsel would finally submit that no prima facie case is made out for short ‘Cr.P.C’ ^ for short'IPC’ against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr.Dhruvram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra & Others^ and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra & another^ and High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Mayank Tiwari vs. State of M.P., & another®. Refuting the same, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners which would attract the alleged offences. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings at the threshold and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the 4. 5. learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Point for determination Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 4 in P.R.C.No. 122 of 2022 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur? Determination by the Court 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 6. 7. " (2019) 18 see 191 ^ (2019) 9 see 608 ® ILR2023 M.P. 1056 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. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others^ is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. At paras 102 and 103, it was held as follows: 8. "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 prime 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 6 AIR 1992 SC 604 5 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 hon-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) It is alleged in the complaint that, while Respondent No.2 and Accused No.1 were studying BDS in Lenora Dental College, Rajahmundry he used to follow her stating that he loved me and subsequently with the consent of both the elders, their betrothal was performed on 31.08.2021. In the month of 9. 6 •I’ September, 2021 Accused No.1 tried to meet her sexually and she refused for the same. When the same was informed to Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4, they also supported him and asked her to fulfill his sexual desire. While so, on 04.11.2021 at about 12.00 noon. Accused No.1 came to her clinic along with two cool drink bottles and gave one bottle to her. When she drank the same. she was asleep and then Accused No.1 had committed rape on her. He also got photographed the same in his cell phone and threatened to post the same in Facebook and Instagram, if she reveals the same to anybody. Thereafter on 28.12.2021 and 14.01.2022, when Respondent No.2 along with her maternal uncle went to the house of the Petitioners and requested to perform her marriage with Accused No.1, Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 demanded dowry of Rs.50.00 lakhs and a car. They also stated that, they performed the betrothal of Accused No.1 with Respondent No.2 only to get the sexual desire of Accused No.1 fulfilled. As such, she lodged a complaint with the Police, which was a registered as a case in Crime No.318 of 2022 of Old Guntur Police Station, Guntur for the offences under Sections 376, 417 and 506 read with 34 IPC against Accused Nos.1 to 4. The Police, after due investigation filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 376 417 and 506 IPC and against Accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offences under Sections 417 and 506 read with 34 IPC. As seen from the contents of the complaint as well as charge sheet, there are specific allegations against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 to attract the 10. ingredients of the offences alleged against him, which cannot be decided at 7 this stage, in the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Correctness or otherwise of allegations against the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 have to be decided during trial. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.1 cannot be quashed at this stage since the ingredients of the offences alleged against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 are prima facie made out. 11. So far as Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, it is alleged against them that they demanded Rs.50.00 lakhs and a car for performing the marriage of Respondent No.2 with Accused No.1 and they stated that the betrothal was performed only to get the sexual desire of Accused No.1 fulfilled. Except the said allegations, there is no material to prove the commission of the alleged offences by Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4, who are parents and sister of Accused No.1. Further, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that Petitioner/ Accused No.4 is a married woman and has been residing at Saudi along with her family. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that, Petitioner/Accu sed No.2, who is the father of Accused No.1 died and copy of death certificate has also been In the absence of any specific overt acts attributed against the filed. Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4, this Court is of the view that Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 had no role to play in the commission of the offences under Sections 417 and 506 read with 34 IPC. As per the first guideline prescribed in Bhajanlal’s case (supra), even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety > 8 they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against Accused Nos.3 and 4 is an abuse of process of law and hence, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. In view of the death of Petitioner/Accused No.2, the case against him can be abated. However, as stated supra, there are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.1. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed by quashing the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 in P.R.C.No.122 of 2022 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 506 read with 34 IPC. The case against Petitioner/Accused No.2 is abated. However, the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in P.R.C.No.122 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 376, 417 and 506 IPC shall continue. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand 12. closed. Sd/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SEC To, 1. The VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of Class, Guntur. 2. One CC to Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri K.L.N. Swamy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies. Chp gl CHP HIGH COURT DATED:23/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.10231 of 2022 I" 28 MAR 2025 ^ ^ . Curreni becuon * CRIMINAL PETITION IS PARTLY ALLOWED