1 APHC010030322022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 621/2022 Between: Potru Krishna Ranga Rao and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. PARIMI RAMA RAYUDU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. SREENIVAS PADALA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 621/2022 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in C.C.No.976 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kovvur, West Godavari District. 2. Heard Sri P. Rama Rayudu, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.Sreenivas, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are no ingredients to attract the offence under Section 509 of IPC. Learned counsel would further submit that during the course of investigation, the Police even failed to collect the WhatsApp messages and also Pamphlets. Learned counsel would further submit that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no legal proof though there are allegations to attract the offence alleged. The case has to be quashed. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab.1 11960 SCC Online SC 21 3 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners also placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid and Another vs. State of U.P and others 2, wherein it is held at para no.31 as follows: “31. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, considering the nature of the allegations levelled in the FIR, a prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC may probably could be said to have been disclosed but not under Section 504 of the IPC. The allegations with respect to the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC can also be looked at from a different perspective. In the FIR, all that the first informant has stated is that abusive language was used by the accused persons. What exactly was uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in the FIR. One of the essential elements, as discussed above, constituting an offence under Section 504 of the IPC is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order to decide whether the use of those words amounted to intentional insult. In the absence of these words, it is not possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult is present.” (emphasis supplied) 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that it is not a fit case for quashment. There are specific allegations made against the petitioners to attract the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 509 r/w 34 of IPC. The contentions raised in this petition are matter of defence. This Court while exercising the Jurisdiction under Section 482 cannot decide the same and conduct a mini trial. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 2 2023 SCC Online SC 951 4 6. Considering the submissions made and on a fair look at the contents of the complaint, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, there are clear allegations made against the petitioners. If there is a prima facie verifiable material which requires investigation at the full length of trial as is in the present case, the case cannot be quashed. As rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial. The Judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are not helpful to his case. In that view, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 30.01.2025 UPS 5 195 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.621 of 2022 Dt.30.01.2025 UPS