IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8743 OF 2022 Between: NANNURI VENUGOPAL & S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged 50 East Kammapalem, Ongole, Prakasam District. MANAVAHAKKULA VENU years, R/o. Karavadi Donka, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.6 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. Marpu Mariyamma, W/o. Late Mariyadasu, aged 45 years, R/o. Mannamvaripaiem Village, Chinnaganjam Mandal, Prakasam District ...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 may be pleased to quash the entire proceedings in Spl.SC.No.12 of 2019 on the file of the Court of learned Court of Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Cum - VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole. (Prayer is amended as per the court order dated 24.10.2024 in i.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.P.No.8743 of 2022) I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 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 may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner in Spl,SC.No.12 of 2019 on the file of the Court of learned Court of Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Cum - VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Varun Byreddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri D.Omkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: APHC010597302022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY i TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8743/2022 Between: 1.NANNURI VENUGOPAL AND MANAVAHAKKULA VENU, S/0. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 50 YEARS, RIO. KARAVADI DONKA, EAST KAMMAPALEM, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2.MARPU MARIYAMMA, W/0. LATE MARIYADASU, AGED 45 YEARS, RIO. MANNAMVARIPALEM VILLAGE, MANDAL,PRAKASAM DISTRICT CHINNAGANJAM ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) ' 2.0MKARD The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.6, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in Spl.S.C.No.12 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-cum-VII Additional District and ' Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole for the offences under Sections 306, 384, 420 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1973^ 2. Heard Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri D.Omkar, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, after thorough investigation, having concluded that the Petitioner was not present at the scene of offence at the relevant time, his name was deleted in the charge sheet. On a protest filed by the De facto Complainant, the Petitioner is again added as Accused No.6. Learned counsel would further submit that, there is no incriminating material against the Petitioner either in the case record or in the dying declaration of the deceased. Learned counsel would further submit that, no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law and prayed for quashment of the same against the Petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner for the commission of the alleged offences. It is submitted that disputed facts aspects, which have to be decided during trial, are present against the Petitioner, would finally submit that there are no tenable grounds to quash the Learned counsel 3 proceedings against the Petitioner at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Point for Determination Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No. 6 in Spl.S.C.No.12 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole? Determination by the Court 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. representing both 7. 4 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 others^ is considered as the guiding torch in the 8. 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 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. (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 3 AIR 1992 sc 604 5 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 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) In the case on hand, it is alleged in the complaint that, the husband of Respondent No.2 and his brothers have Ac.45.00 cents of land and the same was occupied by one Thummalapenta Seetha Ramaiah and others and in that connection. Accused Nos.1 to 3, who styled as caste elders contacted Respondent No.2 and her husband and had collected Rs. 10,000/- under the guise of holding Dharnas at Prakasam Bhavan. It is further alleged that, in March, 2004, the husband of Respondent No.2 died while taking treatment in the hospital of Dr.Venkateswara Rao. Respondent No.2 contended that it is a case of murder by giving an injection and the said Doctor came up for IS 9. / 6 $ settlement. The Accused made Respondent No.2 to believe that they would give more amounts than they settled with the said Doctor. The Accused dragged the family of Respondent No.2 into starvation. When the son of the deceased was beaten by the S.l of Police, Chinnaganjam, Respondent No.2 tried to lodge a complaint against the S.I., the Accused Nos.1 to 3 did not allow them to lodge the complaint. When Respondent No.2 tried to lodge a complaint against the Accused to the District Collector, Prakasam, having come to know about the same. Accused Nos.3 and 5 approached Respondent No.2 and demanded to forget about the cases and the land disputes and suggested to commit suicide by consuming poison for getting benefits to the other family members. It is further alleged that all the Accused abetted Respondent No.2 and her family members to commit suicide at Collectorate, Ongole and Accused No.3 collected the documents pertaining to the land of Respondent No.2 and handed over the same to Accused No.4, who beat and threatened Respondent No.2 and her children with dire consequences. Accused No.4 deceptively represented and collected those documents and Accused No.5 approached them and handed over a pesticide poison abetting the daughters of Respondent No.2 to consume the same to get redressal. Due to the said abetment, the two daughters of Respondent No.2 consumed the poison due to which they died. On receipt of hospital intimation and on recording the statement of Respondent No.2, registered the presentcase. 10. Police, after conducting due investigation, having found that Petitioner herein was not present at the scene of offdnce at the relevant time, deleted his \ 7 name. Aggrieved thereby, on filing a protest petition, the name of the Petitioner was again added in the charge sheet. To attract the offence under Section 306 IPC, there should be instigation or aiding the deceased to commit But, none of the ingredients are there in the complaint filed by suicide. Respondent No.2 to show that the Petitioner/Accused No.6 aided the deceased to commit suicide. The contents of the complaint would clearly show that, the Petitioner along with other Accused assured Respondent No.2 to get more compensation from the S.l, who beat her son. Section 306 of I.P.C. penalizes abetment of commission of suicide. This Court in Chakali Lakshmi Devi v. State of A.P./ by analyzing the precedents on the same Section of law held as follows; “13. A bare reading of the decisions supra and the provisions would make it clear that to charge a person under Section 306, it is essentiai for the prosecution to prove that the accused piayed a role in the suicide. Such role must fall into either of the criteria mentioned in Section 107. In simple words, the accused must either encourage/instigate the individual to take their life, conspired with others to ensure that the individual commits suicide or act/fail to act, which directly results in the individual's suicide. ’’ 11. Therefore, in order to bring the Petitioner within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the Petitioner/Accused No.6 must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of 2024 see OnLine AP 383 8 suicide. A person can be said to have instigated another person, when he actively suggests or stimulates him by means of language, direct or indirect, which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and that act must be done with an intention to push the deceased into such a position that he would commit suicide. Further, as seen from the contents of the complaint as well as charge sheet, the Petitioner has not collected any amount from There is no material to show that the Petitioner is Respondent No.2. responsible for the alleged offences. In the instant case, there no prima facie allegation against the Petitioner to attract the ingredients any of the offences under Sections 306, 384, 420 and 506 read with 34 IPC. Further, there is no suicide note in the instant case. Therefore, the order of cognizance is bereft of any reasons. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion and the judgments referred to supra this Court is of the view that there is no material to continue the proceedings against the Petitioner/ Accused No.6 on the basis of the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2. Unless, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature, it would be hazardous to keep the Petitioner/Accused No.6 under trial. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.6 by exercising the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 13. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.6 in Spl.S.C.No.12 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial offences under Scheduled Castes and ,i\ 9 I' •iSii Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole for the offences under Sections 306, 384, 420 and 506 read with 34 IPC. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. / SD/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Cum - VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole, Prakasam District. 2. One CC to Sri Varun Byreddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri D Omkar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC’s to The Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies GPC PRK HIGH COURT DATED: 28/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.8743 of 2022 cr ^ g 2 3 JDL 202b CO ALLOWING THIS CRLP