APHC010329072024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5283/2024 Between: 1. KANAMARLAPDUI SRINIVASULU, S/O.VENKATA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS D.NO.10/400, FLAT NO.201, SANTHAPETA, NELLORE CITY. 2. KANAMARLAPUDI ANURADHA, W/O.SRINIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, D.NO.10/400, FLAT NO.201, SANTHAPETA, NELLORE CITY. 3. KARAMSETTY VENKATA ALEKYA, S/O.VINOD KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O.VENKATESWARA HOMES APARTMENT, NEAR SIVALAYAM, USMAN SAHEBPETA, NELLORE CITY. 4. KARAMSETTY VINOD KUMAR, S/O.NARASIMHA RAO,AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O VENKATESWARA HOMES APARTMENT, NEAR SIVALAYAM, USMAN SAHEBPETA, NELLORE CITY. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2. SRI KANAMARLAPUDI VENKATA PRASAD, S/O LATE VENKATA SWAMI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS D.NO.23-1173, ARAVINDA NAGAR, NELLORE CITY. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS 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 of the C.C.No.3061 of 2021 on the file of the court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore and quash the same IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of CC No.3061 of 2021 on the file of the court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore, dated 16.07.2021, in the interest of justice. IA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS 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 including the appearance of the petitioners in C.C.No.3061 of 2021 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore, pending disposal of the criminal petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. Y L SIVA KALPANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioners/A.1,A.2 and A.4 and A.5, seeking quashment of the Proceedings against them in C.C.No.3061 of 2021 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602. Heard Ms.Y.L.Sivakalpana Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 is in attendance. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/ A.1,A.2 and A.4 and A.5 would submit that the Petitioners are falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel would further submit that the complaint does not disclose any allegation against the Petitioners and except bald and vague allegations and in the absence of specific allegations, petitioners were added as accused in the charge sheet, which is abuse of process of law. Learned counsel would further submit that prima facie there are no ingredients to constitute any offence against the Petitioners. Further, there is no entrustment of any valuable property to the Petitioners and hence, the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust do not arise at all. In fact, the offence of cheating and breach of trust cannot go together. Learned counsel would submit that this Court vide Order dated 11.12.2024 in Crl.P.No.1098 of 2022 quashed the proceedings in the above case against A.3. Learned counsel would submit that 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 for short ‘I.P.C.’ 3 except Petitioner No.1/A.1, the case of the other Petitioners 2 to 4/A.2, A.4 and A.5 is falling under the same footing of the case of A.3. Learned counsel requested to pass similar orders in case of Petitioners 2 to 4/A.2, A.4 and A.5 and quash the proceedings against them. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2, vehemently opposed the Petition stating that the matter is coming up for trial before the Trial Court. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 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 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 others3 is considered as the guiding torch in the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances necessary to invoke this jurisdiction 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 3 AIR 1992 SC 604 4 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 exer- cised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to se- cure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any pre- cise, 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 ma- terials, 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 com- plaint 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 investiga- tion is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magis- trate 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 per- son 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 provi- sions 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 griev- ance 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 ulte- rior 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 5 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) In the case on hand, as seen from the complaint, Accused No.1 is the elder brother of Respondent No.2. Accused No.1 had taken an amount of Rs.27.00 lakhs for the purpose of business and also had taken 26 sovereigns of gold from him on the promise that he would return the same after returning from a function. Thereaf- ter, Accused No.1 failed to return the amount and the gold to Respondent No.2. Whereas, the contents of the charge sheet would disclose that, Accused No.1 has been running pawn broker business in the name and style of Radha Pawn Brokers and during the course of business, Accused No.1 used to obtain amounts from Re- spondent No.2 and return the same. While so, on 01.04.2019 Accused No.1 along with Accused Nos.2 and 3 went to the house of Respondent No.2 and had obtained an amount of Rs.27.00 lakhs from him and executed two promissory notes. Further, on 08.01.2021 Accused No.1 had taken 26 sovereigns of gold from Respondent No.2 promising to return the same after attending a function and the same was obtained in the presence of Accused Nos.2 to 5, but Accused No.1 did not return the same and thereby cheated him. Accused No.3 in the above case is the son of A.1. As can be seen from the material on record and as rightly put by learned counsel for the Petitioner, the case against A.3, who is the son of A.1, was quashed by this Court. As seen from the complaint, there is not even a single allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 in the commission of the alleged offences. It is alleged in 6 the charge sheet that in the presence of Petitioners 2 to 4 /Accused No.2, A.4 and A.5, Accused No.1 had taken cash and gold from respondent No.2. As such, the present case has been registered against the Petitioners/A.2, A.4 and A.5, along with other Accused Nos.1 and 3, who are father and son respectively for the offences un- der Sections 406 and 420 IPC. As seen from the complaint as well as the charge sheet, there is no single al- legation about the entrustment of the cash and gold ornaments of Respondent No.2 to the Petitioners 2 to 4 herein. It was Accused No.1, who had taken the same from Respondent No.2. There is no iota of evidence to prove the case except making vague and omnibus allegations against the Petitioners 2 to 4. As rightly put by learned counsel for the Petitioners, the case of the Petitioners 2 to 4/A.2, A.4 and A.5 is falling under the same footing of the Petitioner No.3/A.3. In result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed and the Proceedings against Petitioners 2 to 4/A.2, A.4 and A.5 in C.C.No.3061 of 2021 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC are hereby quashed. The Criminal Petition against Pe- titioner No.1/A.1 is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 29.10.2025 Mjl/* 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No. 5283 of 2024 29.10.2025 Mjl/*