IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10065 OF 2022 Between: Boggavarapu Ravindra Babu, S/o.Narasihma Rao, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Service in Endowments Department, R/o.Chandapuram Village, Nandigama Mandal, NTR District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravathi. ...Respondent 2. Manyam Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, aged about 43 years, R/o.Chandapuram Village, Nandigama Mandal, NTR District. ...Respondents/Defacto Complainants 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 proceedings in PRC.No.17/2022 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nandigama in the interest of justice. -2- 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 stay all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioner in PRC.No.17/2022 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nandigama pending disposal of the above CrI.P. in the interest of Justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Nagendra Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Haribabu Maguluri, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. on The Court made the following Order: I I 3 - S) APHC010685862022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA UYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10065/2022 [3396] Between:, r BOGGAVARAPU RAVINDRA BABU, S/O.NARASIHMA RAO, AGED OCC. SERVICE IN ENDOWMENTS nandigAma ABOUT 50 YEARS, department, MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT r/o.chandApuram village PETltlbNER/AGCUSED AND REP.BY ITS PUBLIC 1 THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT PROSECUTOR AMARAVATHI: 2.iVlANYAM SRINIVASA RAO, S/O.VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O.CHANDAPURAM VILLAGE, NAn5|GAMA MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT. RESPbNDENT/GOMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: IPNAGENDRA REDDY f Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.HARI BABU MAGULURI The Court made the following ORDER: The instant petition under Section 462 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.1, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in P.R.C.No.17 of 2022 on the file of the Court of ^ for short'Cr.P.C 2 Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama for the offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, ISeO^. Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and 2. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1/State is in attendance. None represented for Respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the material on 3. record does not disclose the commission of any offence by the Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner/Accused No.1. offence under Section 120B IPC is not an independent penal offence and punishment cannot be awarded independently for the said offence. Learned counsel would further submit that no prima facie offence is made out against the Petitioner. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may 4 pass appropriate orders. 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 5. 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 trial court, 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 2 for short‘iPC’ 3 reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is alleged in the complaint that, there were financial transactions between Respondent No.2 and one Boggavarapu Srisaila Vasu, who is the cousin brother of Petitioher/Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 gave amount of Rs S.OO crores to said Vasu. Subsequently, in view of the death of said Vast], the wife of Vasu agreed to clear the debt owed by her husband. In that regard, she paid some amounts to Respondent No.2 and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,25,50,000/- has to be paid to Respondeht No.2. Respondent No.2 asked for return of the said amount. Petitioner herein along with other Accused used to quarrel with him. Respondeht No.2 came to know that, with a view to evade the said payment, the Petitioner/Accu sed No 1 along with other Accused, are trying to kill him and one Hanumantha Rao, who killed said Vasu and were trying to buy a gun through one Patta Sreenu. At this stage, it is appropriate to extract Section 120-B IPC, which reads 6 an When 7 as follows: “120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy —(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, 1[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the manner as if he had abetted such offence. same (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or With fine or with both.] A juxtaposing perusal of the above provision and the contents of the complaint would go to show that, there are no special allegations against the Petitioner to connect with the alleged offence. As rightly put by learned counsel for the Petitioner, Section 120B is not an independent penal offence. The contents of the FIR do not contain sufficient material facts to support charge under Section 120B, against the Petitioner/Accused No, 1. The allegations leveled against the Petitioner are vague, non-specific, and do not establish the elements of criminal conspiracy. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner to attract the offence under Section 120-B IPC. Therefore, this Court is of the view that continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is a sheer abuse of process of law and it is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. a 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the Petitioner/AccusedNo.1 in P.R.C.No.17of 2022 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama for the offence under Section 120-B IPC. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _ ““ Sd/-M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 0"^ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama, Krishna District. 2. The Station House Officer, Nandigama Police Station, Krishna District. 3. One CC to Sri. P Nagendra Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Haribabu Maguluri, Advocate (OPUC) 5. Two GO'S to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies RDB 'i: ' ■r HIGH COURT DATED:28/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.10065 of 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED