APHC010694372022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10198/2022 Between: MEKA PHANINDRA, S/O.VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, RIO.D.NO.4-4, GEETAMANDER, SAKHINETIPALLI, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. PUSHPAVATHI MEKA, W/O.SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. SAKHINETIPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.253 of 2020 on the file of 2 Sakhinetipalli Police Station, East Godavari District for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601. 2. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. Inspite of 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 Petitioner has not committed any offence much less the alleged offence. Learned counsel would further submit that there were civil disputes between the parties and to settle the said disputes, the present complaint has been lodged against the Petitioner. It is submitted that there are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is mere abuse of process of law. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that, Police filed a memo in this case for alteration of the offence under Section 324 IPC to Section 326 IPC, since the injured sustained grievous injury. It is submitted that there are specific allegations to prima facie attract the offence against the Petitioner. Therefore, it is not a fit case for quashment. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. 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 1 for short ‘IPC’ 3 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. 6. A bare perusal of the record shows that, Respondent No.2 was beaten by the Petitioner/Accused with a steel rod. The Wound Certificate of Respondent No.2 would also show that there is grievous injury to her left middle finger. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that, prima facie there is material to attract the offence under Section 326 IPC against the Petitioner. Such being the case, it is not a fit case for quashment and the petition deserves dismissal. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:217.02.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.10198 of 2022 Dt.21.02.2025 Dinesh