IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7507 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. Kadali Rama Satyanarayana, S/o. Jagannadha Rao, aged 65 years, R/o. 4-11, Near Neralamma Temple Center, Indrapalem, Kakinada Rural, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Kadali Sujatha, W/o. Kadali Ram.a Satyanarayana, aged 63 years, R/o. 4-11, Near Neralamma Temple Center, Indrapalem, Kakinada Rural, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. Gali Anupama, W/o. Ravindranath, aged 31 years, R/o. 4-11, Near Neralamma Temple Center, Indrapalem, Kakinada Rural, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at High Court Buildings at Amravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Gali Vijaya Kumari, W/o. Prabhudasu, aged 58 years, R/o.D.No.170/2, Payakaraopeta Rural, Backside of Siri Mall, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENTS 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 call for the records relating to and in connection with FIR No.307 of 2021 dated 13.12.2021 on the file of the Station House Officer, Police Station, Indrapalem, East Godavari District. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 BETWEEN: The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at High Court Buildings at Amravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONER/1®^ RESPONDENT AND 1. Kadali Rama Satyanarayana, S/o. Jagannadha Rao, aged 65 years, R/o. 4-11, Near Neralamma Temple Center, Indrapalem, Kakinada Rural, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Kadali Sujatha, W/o. Kadali Rama Satyanarayana, aged 63 years, R/o. 4-11, Near Neralamma Temple Center, Indrapalem, Kakinada Rural, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 3. Gali Anupama, W/o. Ravindranath, aged 31 years, R/o. 4-11, Near Neralamma Temple Center, Indrapalem, Kakinada Rural, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. Gali Vijaya Kumari, W/o. Prabhudasu, aged 58 years, R/o.D.No.170/2, Payakaraopeta Rural, Backside of Siri Mall, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh. ...RESP0NDENTS/2'^° RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim order dated. 29-12-2021 passed in Crl.P.No.7507 of 2021. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2021 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 stay of all further proceedings in FIR No.307 of 2021 dated 13.12.2021 on the file of the Station House Officer, Police Station, Indrapalem, East Godavari District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of SRI. V SAI KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri. V.Sesha Kumari, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the followlng:ORDER 1 •C APHC010510422021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7507/2021 Between: Kadali Rama Satyanarayana and ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) Others AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petltioner/accused(S): 1.VSAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complalnant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.VSESHA KUMARI The Court made the following: 2 c ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.307 of 2021 dated 13.12.2021 on the file of SHO, PS,’Indrapalem, East Godavari District for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 354, 506 r/w 34 IPC, 3(2)(va) SC, ST (POA) Act. The petitioners herein are the accused No.1 to 3 and the 2"^^ respondent herein is the de facto complainant in F.I.R.No.307 2. of 2021 The respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant, who is the mother in law of the petitioner No.3/accused No.3. She lodged a compliant before the S.H.O, Indrapalem Police station, Kakinada alleging that while she was repairing her plot at Nerelarnma Colony, Indrapalem Village by staying at the house of her daughter Narala Tulasi, the Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 there and pick up a quarrel and abused her in filthy language and the petitioners/A.2 and A.3 also abused her in filthy language by touching her caste name and pushed her and beat her with hands and threatened her to kill with dire consequences. 3. came 3 Then, the coolie workers who are working there tried to stop the petitioners, the petitioner No.3/accused No.3 threatened to file a case against them alleging that they came there for committing rape on her. Basing on the said complaint, a case was registered against the petitioners in Crime No.307 of 2021 for the offence punishable under section 323, 354, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v)(a) of SC and ST (POA) Act. The present petition has been filed to quash the said Cr.No.307 of 2021. nd 4. On 29.12.2021, this Court, while ordering notice to the 2 respondent granted interim stay of all further proceedings in I I respect of petitioner/accused Nos.1 to 3 in the proceedings, and 1 I the said interim order is extended from time to time. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocents of the alleged offences with which they are charged and they are falsely implicated in the case and ; further there is no material to connect them with the alleged j I offences. The allegations mentioned in the FIR did not constitute I ' any offence and in the absence of substantial material against the I petitioners, continuation of criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of courit and prays to quash the proceedings. 5. , I 4 c On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted 6. that the allegations levelled in the complaint would attract the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354 506 r/w 34 I PC and Section 3(2)(v)(a) of SC and ST (POA) Act. against the petitioners and that there are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners, the truth or otherwise of which would be determined by a competent criminal court in a full- fledged trial and this Court, by exercising the jurisdiction Under Section 482 Cr.P.C, cannot decide the same and hence, he prays for dismissal of the criminal petition. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arose for consideration herein is that: 7. “Whether the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.307/2021 on the fiie of Indrapalem Poiice Station, East Godavari in the absence of any substantial material are liable to be quashed by exercising the Jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” Before proceeding further it may be relevant to refer the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5 Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the ; process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make 1 an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of Justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse I ithat authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the I administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote Justice and to prevent I (injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. (Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases I I and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of Justice. 8. 9. A reading of above provision makes it clear that it (the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders ,may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Court ' , w 1 ' ' jto prevent of process of Court or otherwlise to secure the ends of saves as or 6 c justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has an authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully made, it must be or otherwise it would be useless to make it. 10. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows: In “R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab , the Apex Court laid down the following principles: “(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends ofjustice; (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. Want of sanction; (Hi) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there Is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. ” Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court ot exercise its inherent power to pr^ent abuse of 11. ‘AIR 1960 SC 866 7 the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint, exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event, there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumai^” In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal^” the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 12. ^ AIR 1990 SC ^ ^ 1992 Supp (1) see 335 8 c and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: “(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 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. (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. 9 (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. ” 13. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 14. The main allegation made in the complaint is that, all the (petitioners came to the house of de-facto complainant and pick I up a quarrel with her and abused her in filthy language by itouching her caste name. Infact on a perusal of the material ■ I available on record and all the additional material papers filed by the petitioners would show that, the 2nd respondent/de-facto ! ^complainant is the mother-in-law of the petitioner/accused No.3. I I : The marriage between the petitioner No.3/accused No.3 was I ; performed with the younger son of the de-facto complainant and their marriage was a love marriage and due to some disputes arose between them, A.3 filed a case a^ainsl-her husband who is 10 C the younger son of the de-facto complainant and she also filed a case against her husband and also his family members under section 498-A, 354-C, 506 r/w 34 IPC, Section 3 and 4 of DP Act. Further she also filed a suit in O.S.No.765 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada seeking permanent injunction against her husband’s property and obtained the temporary injunction. Hence, in the light of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the 15. view that there are some disputes between the family of the de- facto complainant and petitioners and several cases are filed by them against each other. The de-facto complainant/2nd respondent with a malafide intention lodged the present complaint with an ulterior motive to wreck vengeance against the petitioners and to harass them mentally and to settle the disputes which are pending between them. Even on a perusal of the complaint, it can be seen that the petitioners and the de-facto complainant are residing under one roof and sharing everything including food since several years, however because of family disputes among themselves, the de-facto complainant filed the criminal case. 16. A reading of the allegations mentioned in the FIR/Complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and 11 accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused and it can be presumed that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreack vengeance on the petitioners/accused : and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. In that view of the matter, in the absence of specific material against petitioners, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of court. Therefore, this court is of the view that it is a fit case to quash the 1 ^ proceedings against the petitioners. 18. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in crime in FIR No.307 of 2021 on the file of Indrapalem, Police ' I I Station are hereby quashed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also I I Sd/-SHAIK MOHD RAFI : ; ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I I . : SECTION OFFICER / //TRUECOPY// To, i l|. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Indrapalem, East Godavari District. One CC to Sri. V. Sai Kumar, Advocate |OPUC] . [Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. : [OUT] ‘ I ■) HIGH COURT DATE0:04/02/2025 O RD E R CRLP.NO.7507 OF 2021 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED.