APHC010288412024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4636/2024 Between: SHAIK NAGUL MEERA, S/O LATE MOULALI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, MUSLIM, R/O D. NO. 26-2-7, NAGARAMPALEM, GUNTUR - 522004, A.P. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. STATE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTABHIPURAM POLICE STATION, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. PAPINENI MOUNIKA, D/O ADI SESHU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC-WARD REVENUE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT NO. 70 SRINIVASARAO THOTA, GUNTUR DIST. - 522004, A.P. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. LAKSHMI KONDALA RAO K Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short „BNSS‟) has been filed by the Petitioner / Accused, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in P.R.C.No.153 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise, Guntur for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short „IPC‟). 2 2. Heard Sri K.Lakshmi Kondala Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State. Notice sent to Respondent No.2 was returned as refused. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is the husband of the deceased. Learned counsel would further submit that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between the Petitioner and the deceased, they had been living separately. Learned counsel would submit that, the present complaint has not been lodged by any of the family members of the deceased. It is submitted that the suicide note of the deceased does not disclose that due to the harassment of the Petitioner, the deceased committed suicide. The Petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case. It is clearly mentioned in the suicide note that there is no instigation of the Petitioner to cause the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel would further submit that the watchman and the President of the apartment, wherein, the deceased has committed suicide, did not state anything against the Petitioner to connect him with the alleged offences. Learned counsel would finally submit that there are no specific allegations against the Petitioner to attract the alleged offences against him and hence, continuation of proceedings against him is an abuse of process of law. 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the deceased had clearly mentioned in her suicide note about the harassment of the Petitioner towards the deceased. It is further submitted that, there are specific allegations against the Petitioner in the suicide note. This is a 3 premature stage to decide the culpability of the Petitioner in the alleged crime. 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 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. There is no dispute about the relationship between the Petitioner and the deceased. As seen from the record, their marriage had taken place in the year 2015. Subsequently, in view of the misunderstandings arose between them, on 02.10.2019 the deceased gave a report to Disha Women Police, Guntur District against the Petitioner herein and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.300 of 2019 for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Police after completion of investigation in the said crime, filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.3101 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur. Again on 18.11.2019, the deceased gave another report against the Petitioner herein, which was registered as a case in Crime no.328 4 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC and Section 66-C of the Information Technology Act on the file of Nagarampalem Police Station, wherein, Police filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.3644 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur. Since 2021, the deceased has been living away from the Petitioner. 7. It is alleged in the charge sheet that, the Petitioner used to visit the house of the deceased and create nuisance alleging that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with others and thereby used to harass her. It is further alleged that, without giving divorce to the deceased, the Petitioner married L.W.11 – Shaik Rizvana. Due to the unbearable harassment of the Petitioner, the deceased went into depression and died before her death, by committing suicide. The present complaint has been lodged by Respondent No.2 - Ward Revenue Secretary, on suspicion over the death of the deceased. 8. It is the contention of the Petitioner that, the suicide note of the deceased does not disclose any instigation on the part of the Petitioner to cause the deceased to commit suicide. As seen from the suicide note drafted by the deceased under the caption “Self Declaration”, on one hand she stated that having vexed with her life and fate, she was committing suicide. On the other hand, she stated that the Petitioner along with the mother of the deceased used to spread rumours against her character. It is further stated that, due to the betrayal and harassment of the Petitioner along with mother, she vexed with her life. She further stated that, her maternal grandmother, material uncle, aunt and younger sister used to help her in all sorts. She also 5 stated that, there is every possibility to lodge false cases against them by the Petitioner, after her death. As such, she requested not to take any action on them, as they helped her, a lot, both morally and financially, while she was in depression. 9. While dealing with the quashment of the proceedings, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others1, a three Judge Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court laid down the following principles of law:- “57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the „rarest of rare cases‟. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power 1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 6 of the court is, however, recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C. ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P.Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.” (emphasis supplied) 10. A bare perusal of the contents of the suicide note and the charge sheet would disclose that there are disputes between the Petitioner and the 7 deceased and with regard to the same, the Petitioner having conspired with the mother of the deceased, used to harass the deceased and having vexed with her life, she committed suicide. The allegations levelled against the Petitioner are specific and the same have to be revealed during trial. There are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner, at this stage. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial while deciding the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There are no merits for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner / Accused, at this stage. Hence, the petition deserves dismissal. 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:17.11.2025 Dinesh 8 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.4636 of 2024 Dt.17.11.2025 Dinesh