APHC010479882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9483/2025 Between: 1. MUKESH JAIN, S/O. NEMICHAND JAIN, AGED 59 YEARS, OCC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PAPER LTD, SRI RAM NAGAR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI REP. BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, III TOWN L AND O POLICE STATION, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, 2. RAYUDU VIJAYA KRISHNA, S/O.YESURATNAM, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O. D.NO1-57, AMBEDKAR STREET, OLD KOLAMURU, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...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 Pleased to call for the records in and relating to Crime No.173/2025 of the III Town L& O Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, Godavari District and quash the same in so far as the Petitioner is concerned and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 all further proceedings including arrest of the Petitioner in Crime No.173/2025 of the III Town L& O Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District pending disposal of this Criminal Petition before this Hon’ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VARREY VENTAKATA NAGAVISHNU TEJA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. CHERUVU CHAITANYA BHARGAVA SARMA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.5, seeking quashment of Proceedings against him in Crime No. 173 of 2025 on the file of III Town Law and Order Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, registered for the offences under Sections 318(4) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: Respondent No.2 herein is the Complainant. Respondent No.2 herein and one Dasari Satyadev were appointed in Andhra paper Mill Limited, Rajamahendravam under Parampara Scheme. They completed their probation period without any remarks. The A.1 is the Working President, the A2 is the Associate Vice President- IR, the A.3 is a member of Labour Union and the A.4 is the General Secretary of the Labour Union and the A.5/petitioner is the Director of Andhra Paper Mill Limited (for short’ the Company’). As per the complaint averments, at the time of joining into Service, the managerial staff (A.2 and A.5) of the Company did not inform to the Respondent No.2 and other employees, who were altogether appointed under Parampara scheme in the year 2022, about the salary particulars and pay 3 structure. A total 110 workers were appointed under Parampara-1 & 2 scheme. It is averred that A.2 and A.5 collected an amount of Rs.6,64,00,000/- from the 110 workers on the pretext that they will provide jobs in the Company by promising that their parents also would be paid salaries and allowances as per SS-2. Further, at the time of training to the new recruits, the Company officials informed that newly recruited workers are also entitled for the same salary as is the senior workers (permanent employees) of the Company who are drawing as per SS-2 for the period from 01.07.2020 to 31.12.2023. Despite the said promise, the Management did not pay P.M.6 allowance of Rs.2,000/- for six months as per SS-2, production bonus of 25.5% and other salary benefits even after completion of their training period and thereby, the Company cheated the workers, who were appointed under parapara-1 & 2 scheme, and made the employees to believe that they will be paid the salary and other benefits, as per the SS-2 Agreement. On behalf of 110 workers, R.Vijaya Krishna and Satya Dev gave a complaint to the Police, which is registered as a case in Crime No.173 of 2025 of III Town Police Station, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) read with 3(5) of BNS. Being aggrieved by the registration of the crime, Petitioner/A.5 filed the present Criminal Petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him. Heard Sri V.V.N.V. Teja, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri Ch.Chaitanya Bhargava Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record. 4 Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the company introduced a scheme ‘Parampara’ with a view to give benefit to its existing permanent employees in the Company. As per the scheme, the permanent employee can voluntarily give up the job to his/her family members subject to fulfillment of the criteria prescribed by the company. Further, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 16.6.2022 was executed between the Management of the Company (A2 and A.5) and the then Union Leaders of the Recognized Trade Union (A1, A3 and A4). Learned counsel would further submit that except signing on the MoU, there is role of the Petitioner/A.5 either in the appointments or managing the workers. It is the duty of the IR Department of the Company to look after all these things for the Company. Learned counsel would submit that even as per the appointment orders of the workers, nothing is mentioned about the benefits as averred in the complaint and the appointment orders were issued to the workers by A2 but not by Petitioner/A5. Learned counsel vehemently argued that initially, respondent No.2 along with other employees gave a complaint on 22.02.2025 wherein, there is no single allegation against the Petitioner herein. Thereafter, respondent No.2 gave a representation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police dated 17.04.2025 stating that there is no role of the Petitioner herein in the alleged transactions and requested to delete the name of the Petitioner, but till now, his name was not deleted. Learned Counsel would further submit that the allegations made against the Petitioner do not constitute any offence against him. A bare look at the 5 averments in the complaint, there are no ingredients of cheating in the complaint to attract the offence under Section 318 BNS against the Petitioner. Further, Petitioner is innocent of the offence and he was falsely implicated in this case. The entire issue relates to the IR department of the Company, which looks after the pay and salary benefits of its works. Only because the Petitioner is holding a higher post in the Company, does not mean that he can be held responsible for the loss of benefits of the workers. In the absence of any allegations, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations will be revealed during investigation. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner, at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 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 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 6 reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others1 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances 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 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 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. 1 AIR 1992 SC 604 7 (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) As can be seen from the above judgment, the first guideline is to the effect that even if the complaint allegations are accepted to be true on their face value, if they do not constitute an offence, then the FIR can be quashed. On this criteria, when the complaint allegations are perused, the first and foremost allegation is that the Petitioner/A5 along with other Accused, collected huge amounts from the workers believing them to raise their salaries and benefits as per SS-2. Admittedly, at the relevant point of time, Petitioner/A5 was the Executive Director of the Company. The initial complaint would show that no averment is made against the Petitioner/A5 and respondent No.2 himself gave a 8 representation to the Police officials to delete the name of the Petitioner herein in the initial complaint, herein it is clearly mentioned that they have no grievance against the Petitioner herein. A bare perusal of the representation of the respondent No.2 to the Police officials, which was signed by the workers of parampara-1 and 2 would show that though there is no direct information about the involvement of A5 (petitioner herein) in the alleged offence, A5 is working on behalf of the management, with the influence of A1 and A4, A5 is falsely implicated in this case and requested the Police to delete the name of A5 from the complaint as accused. As seen from the appointment order respondent No.2, it was singed and issued by A2 in the capacity of the Associate Vice President-IR of the Company and as stated, he resigned to the Company vide Email dated 10.03.2025 which is not controverted by respondent No.2 during the hearing of the case. Coming to the aspect of collecting amounts from the workers is concerned, in the entire complaint allegations, nothing is averred and no single piece of evidence is placed on record by respondent No.2 in proof of thereof that the amounts were given to Petitioner/A.5. Except signing on the MoU, Petitioner had no role in the entire case. MoU was signed altogether by the Managing Members of the Company and the Union members, but not by Petitioner/A.5 alone. If at all, Respondent No.2 had any grievance regarding the salary and emoluments, he would have approached the management of the Company for redressal of the grievance. Needless to say, respondent No.2 on 9 behalf of the workers gave a representation to the Police with bonafide reason that Petitioner is innocent of the offence and requested to delete his name from the list of accused. That itself sufficient to come to the conclusion that Petitioner is innocent of the offence. Putting together the allegations leveled against the Petitioner and the provisions of the Sections of law lodged against the Petitioner, would clearly go to show that no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner for the offences under Sections 318(4) read with 3(5) BNS. In that view, it can safely be concluded prima facie that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner/A.5 would amount to abuse of process of Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The Proceedings in Crime No.173 of 2025 of III Town Police Station, Rajahmundry, East Godavari registered for the offences under Sections 318(4) read with 3(5) BNS against the Petitioner/A.5 are hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 10 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Criminal Petition No.9483 of 2025 07.11.2024 Mjl/*