IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 338 OF 2022 Between; 1. Chitiprolu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Bhishma Rao.age 52 yrs, R/o. Door No.3- 29-39, Bhavya Residency, Flat No.F2, 2nd Line, Krishna Nagar, Pattabhipurarn, Guntur.(AI) 2. Chitiprolu Raghava Rao,(A2) S/o Bhishma Rao age 50 yrs, R/o. Door No 30-2-321, Bhavya Manor Apartment, Flat No.6/ 15, 2nd Line, Brodipet, Guntur.(A2) 3. Chitttiprolu Ratnakara Rao,(A3) S/o. Bhishma Rao, age 47 yrs, R/o. Door No.6/15, Bhavya Residency, Flat No.B-4, Brodipet, Guntur. ...Petitioners/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (Dachepalli Police Station, Guntur Dist.) Rep. by it's Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District ...Respondent 2. Chitiprolu Nageswaramma, W/o Kasaiah, age 56 yrs, R/ o. Bhavya Paradise, Flat No.C-1,5-54-117, Brodipet 6/18, Guntur ...Respondent/De-Facto Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to quash the crime in FIR No 9/2022 of Dachepalli Police Station Guntur District. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent police not to take any coercive steps including arrest in connection with Crime no 9/2022 of Dachepalli police Station Guntur District pending disposal of the criminal petition Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. I.A. NO: 3 OF 2022 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 in Crime No 9/2022 of Dachepalli Police station Guntur District pending disposal of the criminal petition Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Venkateswarlu Posani, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri K V G M KRISH RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following Order: APHC010025572022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) i [3396] ^ TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 338/2022 Between: 1.CHITIPROLU SRINIVASA RAO, S/0. BHISHMA RAO,AGE 52 YRS, R/0. DOOR NO.3-29-39, BHAVYA RESIDENCY, FLAT NO.F2, 2ND LINE, KRISHNA NAGAR, PATTABHIPURARN, GUNTUR.(AL) 2.CHITIPROLU RAGHAVA RAO,, S/0 BHISHMA RAO AGE 50 YRS, R/0. DOOR NO 30-2-321, BHAVYA MANOR APARTMENT, FLAT N0.6/15, 2ND LINE, BRODIPET, GUNTUR.(A2) 3.CHITTTIPROLU RATNAKARA RAO, S/0. BHISHMA RAO, AGE 47 YRS, R/0. DOOR NO.6/15, BHAVYA RESIDENCY, FLAT NO.B-4, BRODIPET, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED{S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, (DACHEPALLI POLICE STATION, GUNTUR DIST.) REP. BY IT'S PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2.CHITIPROLU NAGESWARAMMA, W/0 KASAIAH, AGE 56 YRS, R/ O. BHAVYA PARADISE, FLAT NO.C-1,5-54-117, BRODIPET 6/18, GUNTUR ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.VENKATESWARLU POSANI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.KVG M KRISHNA RAO The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed, by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in Crime No.9 of 2022 on the file of Dachepalli Police Station, Guntur District for the offences under Sections 307, 420 and 120B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code^. 2. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1/State. Inspite of providing sufficient opportunity. learned counsel for Respondent No.2 did not turn up to submit arguments on behalf of Respondent No.2. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 herein filed O.S.Nos.21/2021 and 39/2021 against the husband of Respondent No.2 herein and Petitioner/Acc used No.3 herein had obtained interim order in O.S.No.39 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurajala. Whereas, in O.S.No.21 of 2021, injunction was obtained by the Petitioner/Accused No.1. Learned senior counsel would further submit that, there are no allegations to the effect that the Petitioners induced Respondent No.2 to deliver the property. It is submitted that, criminal case has also been lodged by Accused No.1 herein against the husband of Respondent No.2 and others. Learned senior > in short ‘Cr.P.C.’ ^ in short ‘IPC; ' 0 counsel would submit that, to attract the offence under Section 307 IPC, there must be some allegation that there is a hurt, which may lead to death. It is further submitted that, without conducting preliminaryenquiry, the case under Section 420 IPC cannot be allowed in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt, of U.P. & Ors.^. Learned senior counsel would submit that, as a counterblast to the case lodged by Accused Nos.1 and 3 herein against the husband of Respondent No.2, the present case has been lodged. It is submitted that the properties are in the name of the firm. The motive attributed is absurd and improper. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the case is falling under guideline No.4 mentioned in the case the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others'*. Learned counsel would further submit that there is a delay of 14 days in lodging the complaint. Learned senior counsel would finally submit that, instead of filing written statements in the above civil suits, the present case has been lodged against the Petitioners. Therefore, continuation of such proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi®. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that, this 4. is a case of case and counter. It is submitted that there are triable issues in " (2014) 2 see 1 4 AIR 1992 SC 604 ^ (2007) 12 see 641 the present case. It is further submitted that because of the stay granted in this case, there is no progress in the investigation. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that stay may be vacated to enable the investigating agency to conclude the investigation. Point for Determination 5. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows; Whether the case against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 9 of 2022 on the file of Dachepalli Police Station, Guntur District, is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.? Determination by the Court 6. 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 dot 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. 5 The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others^ 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; 7. “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 prime 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. 6 AIR 1992 SC 604 (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. (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) Respondent No.2 has filed the present complaint with the Police 8. against the Petitioners alleging that, being the distant relatives of her husband, Petitioners established a cotton mill along with the husband of Respondent No.2 namely Kasaiah by mortgaging the house site of 7 Respondent No.2. As Petitioner/Accused No.2 cheated said Kasaiah, and as said Kasaiah was also partner of the said business, Government lodged As such, said Kasaiah started Bheeshma cases against Kasaiah. Constructions and Tenuka Cotton Company along with Accused Nos.1 and 3 and Accused Nos.1 and 3 used to look after the same. Thereafter, Accused Nos.1 to 3 having colluded together cheated Kasaiah. Petitioners used to pressurize and threaten them to transfer the properties of Respondent No.2 in their names. They have been trying to grab their property by killing Respondent No.2 and her husband. While so, on 24.12.2021 at about 9.00 p.m., while Respondent No.2 was in their house, two persons came there to kill them. On apprehension and on questioning, the stated that. Accused Nos.1 to 3 sent them. When Respondent No.2 tried to handover them to the Police, they escaped. As such. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the Petitioners for the alleged offences. At this stage it is apposite to extract Section 307 I PC which reads as 9. under: "307. Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. ” As seen from the above provision, in order to attract the offence under 10. Section 307 IPC, there must be an act of causing hurt having intention or 8 knowledge that it may cause death of such person. In the instant case, it is alleged in the complaint that, on the alleged date of incident, two persons came to the house of Respondent No.2 to kill them. When Respondent No.2 searched in their bag, they found knifes. On questioning the said persons stated that they were sent by the Petitioners herein. Except the said allegations, there was no attempt to cause hurt on either Respondent No.2 or any of her family members either by the alleged two persons or by the Petitioners, which may lead to death, material evidence to connect the Petitioners with the alleged act, the offence under Section 307 I PC does not attract against the Petitioners. Further, the material placed on record would show that, in view of the property disputes between the families of Respondent No.2 and the Petitioners herein, on 16.07.2021 Petitioner/Accused No.3 herein lodged a complaint against the husband of Respondent No.2, which was registered as a case in Crime No.280 of 2021 for the offences under sections 447, 448 and 506 read with 34 IPC and another complaint was also lodged against the husband of Respondent No.2 by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on 12.10.2021 which was registered as case in Crime No.988 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 IPC. Furthermore, civil suits in O.S.Nos.21 of 2021 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior In the absence of evidence 11. Civil Judge, Guntur and 39 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior N 9 Civil Judge, Gurajala were also filed by Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 herein against the husband of Respondent No.2 and obtained orders. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex 12. Court in Vesa Holdings Private Limited & Another Vs. State of Kerala & Others^, wherein, it was held as follows: “It is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not. In the present case there is nothing to show that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC. In our view the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all. Criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when it is found to be malafide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The Superior courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and the High Court committed an error in refusing to exercise the power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings. ” In Medmeme, LLC and Others Vs. IHORSE BPO Solutions Private 13. Limited®, the Hon’ble Apex Court, held as follows: “After going through the allegations contained in the complaint and the material on record, we are of firm conclusion that the matter entirely pertains to civil jurisdiction and not even a prima facie case is made out for offences under Sections 420, 406, 409 read with Section ’ (2015)8 see 293 * (2018) 13 see 374 10 120Bof IPC even If the allegations contained in the complaint are to be taken on their face value. The complaint gives a clear impression that it was primarily a case where the respondent had alleged breach of contract on the part of the appellants in not making the entire payments for the services rendered to the appellants. On the other hand not in dispute that substantial amounts have been paid bv the appellants to the respondent-company for the services rendered. it is Reason for non-payment of the balance given by the appellants is that the amount as , services rendered by the respondent-company were not in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties and were deficient in nature. For this reason, even the appellants have filed claims against the respondent-company alleging that appellant suffered losses because of the defective services provided by the respondent. On the basis of it, we find that it cannot be said that at the time of entering into the agreement, either the first agreement or even the second agreement, there was any intention on the part of the appellants to cheat the respondent No suspicion of any nature w/as shown or even alleged. It is also not the allegation of the respondent in the complaint that the agreement was entered into with fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the appellants in inducing the respondent to enter into such a contract. At best, the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature, proceedings in respect of which the learned Arbitrator. are pending before ^ appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and thereby allow the petition filed by , appellants in the High Court under Section 482 of Code Criminal Procedure ” Admittedly, there are civil disputes between the the of 14. parties and criminal were also lodged by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 against the husband of Respondent No.2. Subsequent to the cases, the present compliant has been lodged cases and 3 herein said criminal on 08.01.2022 as a r 11 counterblast. Further, as rightly put by the learned senior counsel for the Petitioners, there is a delay of 14 days in lodging the FIR and the reason for the said delay has not been explained. In the present case, the material available on record does not disclose any ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 420 and 120B IPC also against the Petitioners. Even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 307, 420 and 120B read with 34 IPC. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there are no tenable grounds to continue the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 and as such, the same are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, by quashing the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.9 of 2022 on the file of Dachepalli Police Station, Guntur District for the offences under 15. Sections 307, 420 and 120B read with 34 IPC. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Station House Officer, Dachepalli Police Station, Guntur District 2. One CC to Sri. Venkateswarlu Posani, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. K V G M Krishna Rao, Advocate [OPUC] . Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies SM HIGH COURT DATED;28/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.338 of 2022 i 0 IJUL 2025 ■ ,J ^^^°esPATCW^I^^ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION