IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4208 OF 2022 6): Between: Dadi Sri Rama Krishna, S/o. Sri Ramulu, Aged- 54 years, Gavara, R/o. D.No.15-1-36, Radha Madhav Towers, Ootagadda, Daspalla Hills, MR Peta, Visakhapatnam City. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 2. Mohamed Abdul Suban, S/o. Late Mohideen, Age- 56 years, Muslim, R/o. Plot no.327. Phase VI, Ahmed Nagar, Sathivanipalem Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam City. ...RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT ...RESPONDENTS/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 pleased to call the records in CC No.5298/20t8 tin the file of the Court of III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam and quash the same, in the interests of justice. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 . , Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. i' circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further CC. No.5298/2018 on the file of the Court of III Additional Magistrate at Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the Criminal the interest of justice. praying that in the proceedings in Metropolitan Petition, in This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri and the Public Prosecutor V. SATISH, Advocate VENKAT CHALLA, Advocate for the Petitioner (AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri V. for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following order: n APHC010242022022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4208/2022 Between: 1.DADI SRI RAMA KRISHNA, S/0. SRI RAMULU, AGED- 54 YEARS, RIO. D.NO. 15-1-36, RADHA MADHAV TOWERs! VISAKHAPATNAM GAVARA, OOTAGADDA, DASPALLA HILLS, MR PETA CITY. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2.MOHAMED ABDUL SUBAN, S/0. LATE MOHIDEEN, AGE- 56 YEARS, MUSLIM, R/0. PLOT N0.327, PHASE VI, AHMED NAGAR, SATHIVANIPALEM VILLAGE VISAKHAPATNAM CITY. PENDURTHI MANDAL, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.VENKATCHALLA Counsel for the Respondent/comf)lainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, is preferred by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in C.C.No.5298 of 2018 on the file of the Court of 1 1973 ^ for short‘Cr.P.C VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam for the offences under Sections 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860^ Heard Sri Venkat Challa, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1. None represented for Respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the allegations leveled against the Petitioner are bald and omnibus. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner herein filed O.S.No.161 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam seeking permanent injunction with regard to the subject property and the same is pending. In view of the cloud on the possession over the subject property, the question of alleged criminal trespass and by the Petitioner does not arise. Learned counsel would further submit that the allegations attributed against the Petitioner do not attract the ingredients of the alleged offences. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in S.Venkata Naga Kishore vs. State of A.P. and others^ and a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dr.Niyamathulla Khan vs. State of A.P. and another^. 2. 3. ^ for short 'IPC’ ^ Crl.P.No.107of 2020, dated 22.04.2024 ^ Crl.P.Nos.7731 & 10087 of 2014, dated 14.08.2023 % 3 Contrasting the same, Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations will be revealed during trial. Therefore, the proceedings against the Petitioner, at this stage, cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 4. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: 5. Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.5298 of 2018 on the file of the Court of VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam? 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 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. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. 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 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 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 7. 5 AIR 1992 SC 604 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 manifestiy 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 shouid be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be Justified in dmbarking 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 present case, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint alleging that the Petitioner on 15.12.2018 at about 13.30 hours, the Petitioner 8. along with his men, illegally entered into their land, threatened them with dire consequences, to stop the construction work. Based on the said complaint, a in Crime No.806 of 2018 has been lodged against the Petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 447 and 506 read with 34 I PC on the file of Pendurthy Police Station. The Police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the Petitioner only for the offences under Sections 447 and 506 IPC. case 9. A bare perusal of the material placed on record would clearly show that, with regard to the subject property, one Dadi Santha Kumari, filed O.S.No.161 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam against Respondent No.2 herein and others seeking permanent injunction restraining them from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject property and the same is pending consideration. Until and unless the possession over the subject property is determined, the alleged criminal trespass into the subject property and the consequential criminal intimidation alleged to have committed by the Petitioner which are punishable under Sections 447 and 506 I PC do not arise against the Petitioner. The entire dispute revolves round the subject property and there involves the dispute of title and possession over the subject land, allegations made in the complaint appear to be directly relating to a civil dispute and Respondent No. resorted to criminal prosecution against the Petitioner by inviting the Police to be interfered with the civil litigation. In Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others® the Hon’ble 10. The 11. Apex Court at Para No. 12 held as follows; "12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends ofjustice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature M given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court. ” ® (2013) 11 see 673 7 On an overall consideration of the entire material placed on record and the judgments referred to supra, it is suffice to conclude that the contentions 12. raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the material produced before this Court directly indicate the mala tides in initiating criminal proceedings against the Petitioner, and to cloak a civil dispute with criminal nature. The Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioner are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioner. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against 13. Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.5298 of 2018 on the file of the Court of VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam for the offences under Sections 447 and 506 IPC, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam 2. One CC to Sri Venkat Challa, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri V. V. Satish, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC’s to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies SM ssb HIGH COURT DATED:02/04/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.4208 of 2022 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION