IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ^ TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3548 of 2020 Between: Dodia Narahara @ Narahari, S/o. Obulesu, Age 60 years, R/o. Ram Nivas Apartment, Mungamur Road, near Sri Ramachandra Mission Ashramam, Ongole, Prakasam District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED N0.1 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., Ongole Taluk Police Station, Prakasam District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravati. P. Yanadi, Railway Staff, Ongole Railway Station, Prakasam District. ...COMPLAINANT 3. Dasari Vamsi, S/o Dasari Malyadri, 7**^ line, Balaram Colony, Ongole Town, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENTS/SON OF DECEASED/ LW1 IN CR.N0.388 OF 2020 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 the F.I.R.No. 388 of 2020 ■A ' r J/ on the file of the Ongole Taluk Police Station, Prakasam District, and quash / ^‘the proceedings thereon. r.A. NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 482 of Gr.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 in F.I.R.No.388 of 2020 on the file of the Ongole Taluk Police Station, Prakasam District, 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 Smt Kavitha Gottipati, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Nos.2 & 3. e appeared ■f/% r f K i IV^I If Respondent I iwi I The Court made the following ORDER : X / 1 VSJ Crl.P.No.3548 of 2020 APHC010235912020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3548/2020 Between: Dodia Narahara @ Narahari ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.KAVITHA GOTTIPATI \ Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) “0 2 f VS,J Crl.P.No.3548 of 2020 The Court made the following Order: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) by the petitioner/accused No.1 to quash the proceedings in Crime No.388 of 2020 on the file of the Ongole Taluk Police Station, Prakasam District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 306 of IPC and Sec.3(1 )(r)(s), 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST POA Act, 1989. 2. The petitioner herein is the accused No.1 and respondent No.2 herein is the compialnant. The case of the prosecution is as follows: 3. One Yanadi, Station Master lodged a complaint before the GRP Ongole Police Station, alleging that on 18/19-8-2020 at KM X 284/20-22 in between Surareddypalem-Ongole Railway station found one unknown person dead body at the railway track and a case was registered in Cr.No.44/2020 for the offence punishable U/Sec.174 Cr.P.C. Further, the case was transferred to Ongole Taluk Police Station and inturn registered a case in Cr.No.388/2020. During the course of investigation, basing on the statements of L.W1 to L.W4 i.e., deceased family members, the 3 VS,J Crl.P.No.3548 of 2020 police altered the section of law from Section 174 Cr.P.C to and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, petitioner harassed the deceased Sec.306 IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) 1989, alleging that the Dasari SIX months on debt issue and in the month of the deceased to Singarayakonda opposite to the MRO office and son, brother and insisted them the deceased. Due to the and went to railway track and running train. The quash the Cr.No.388 of 2020. Malyadri for the last si April, 2020 the petitioner called near to a hotel situated negotiations with deceased, his repay the debt amount and threatened made to same, the deceased got distress commitfpH WC4IOIUC by failing under an unknown present petition has been filed to On 03.09.2020, when hearing, this Court passed the the present petition following interim order. came up for X ‘■■■In view of the submission of the learned ratio decided by the reported in 2011 SC 1238 cited supra, thera shall be stay of all further proceedings". counsel for the petitioner and the Honourable Apex Court, 04. Heard the learned teamed Additional Public Prosecutor for counsel for the petitioner the respondents. and the VSJ Crl.P.No.3548 of 2020 05. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while he serving as S.l. of Police at Ulavapadu P.S., got acquaintance with the deceased, Dasari Malyadri, who borrowed 15,00,000/- for his wife's cancer treatment from the petitoner. The deceased and his family allegedly have created forged DKT Pattas and handed over the same to the petitioner herein and cheated him as the pattas are genuine one. After came to the knowledge of the said fact, the petitioner herein has lodged a complaint on 17.08.2020 and the same was registered as FIR No.381 of 2020 on 20.08.2020 on the file of Ongole Taluka P.S for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, and 471 IPC. The petitioner submitted that merely requesting repayment of debt amount does not amount to abetment of suicide. Further, it is submitted that the X allegations made in the complaint do not establish a prima facie case, therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law and hence liable to be quashed. was 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents, would contend that the issue as to whether the said incident took place within public view or not is a disputed question of fact and the T 5 VSJ Crl.P.No.3548 of 2020 same has to be decided after trial and whether the petitioner abetted the commission of suicide is a disputed question of fact that requires investigation by the police. He submits that it is impermissible for the High Court to look into the documents filed along with the petition, as the acceptability of which is essentially a matter of trial and that this court cannot invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and stall the investigation at the threshold. 7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the proceedings in Crime No.388 of 2020 on the file of Ongole Taluk Police Station, Prakasam District, is liable to be quashed against the petitioner by exercising Jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.? The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of X. jf 8. Cr.P.C. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give • •o. VSJ Crl.P.No.3548 of 2020 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 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 that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent 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 and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 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; 7 VSJ Crl.P.No.3548 of 2020 In 'R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab'-, the Apex Court laid down the following principles: (i) Where institution/continuance of criminal against an accused may amount to the abuse of the the court or that the quashing of the i would secure the ends of justice; (ii) where it manifestly appears that there i the institution or continuance of the of sanction; (ill) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the compamt taken at their face value and accepted in Iheir entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduce- clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. proceedings ' process of impugned proceedings a legal bar against said proceeding, e.g. want IS and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court to the process of Court. In empowers exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of proceedings instituted exercise of the inherent power to quash the for only in cases where the offence or is frivolous, set out in the complaint do not cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it i to quash the same in exercise of the inherent on complaint X proceedings is called complaint does not disclose any vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations constitute the offence of which IS open to the High Court powers under AIR I960 SC 866 8 VS,J Crl.P.No.3548 of 2020 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 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or X 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 prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. ^ AIR 1990 SC 494 ^ 1992 Supp (1) see 335 9 VS,J CrI.P.No.3548 of 2020 (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 accused. a case against the (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 prudent person can ever reach no a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where theere is an express _ ' aar engrafted m 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. icya (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. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to 9. examine the case on hand. 10. As per the material on record, the deceased borrowed Rs. 15,00,000/- from the petitioner herein by pledging DKT which were in the name of the deceased and pattas, others. Later, the petitioner came to know that the DKT pattas pledged by the deceased are forgeo"^ pattas, thereafter the petitioner herein 10 VS,J Crl.P.No.3548 of 2020 lodged complaint against the deceased on 20.08.2020 and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.381 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of l.P.C. and requested the deceased to repay his debt. In spite of repeated requests, the deceased did not repay the said debt. It is alleged in the present complaint that due to the harassment caused by the petitioner, the deceased committed suicide, which is punishable under Section 306 of l.P.C., which reads thus; Abetment of suicide.^ !f whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” r\j=irQQn coHiniits siiiclds one OL/L/. & 3 (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- N (r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; (s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in anyplace within public view; (2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- «Q 11 VSJ Crl.P.No.3548 of 2020 M commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person is a member of a or such puhishable with person or property, knowing that such Scheduled Caste a Scheduled Tribe or property belongs to such member, shall be punishment as specified under the I860) for such offences and shall also such Indian Penal Code (45 of be liable to fine; 11. Section 306 of IPC stales that whoever abets the per law. To bring demonstrate that the provoked the dec established whether the victim left them with involving alleged abetment evidence of either direct if a person commits suicide commission of such suicide shall be punished a case under this provision, it is crucial to accused intentionally acted in a way that ‘0 commit suicide. Therefore, it must be cruelty or harassment inflicted as ^ ^ .-i f ^ on the no choice but to take their own life. In cases Of suicide, there must be solid or indirect incitement leading is not enough to prove guilt. to the X suicide. Simply claiming harassment i The act of demanding the the case within the repayment of money would not bring meaning of Section 306 of I.P.C as the petitioner would not be benefited from the act of suicide of state represented by the Deputy the deceased. In “M.Mohan Vs. 12 VSJ Crl.P.No.3548 of 2020 Superintendent of Police, AIR 2011 SC 1238 wherein it is heid that: “admittediy, the aiiegation in the FiR is of the deceased having borrowed money from the present appiicant. The deceased faiied to repay the amount with interest. The appiicant was constancy demanding the money and aiieged to have threatened the deceased. Such act of demanding the repayment of money wouid not bring case within the meaning of Section 306 of the indian Penai Code. There wouid not be any mens rea of the appiicant as he wouid not benefited from the act of suicide of the deceased and thus, prima facie the aiiegation in the F.i.R., taken at it face vaiue do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused”. Accordingiy, the Court quashed the Court proceedings in the said case. X In view of the law laid down in the said judgment, it is clear that demanding repayment of the money would not bring the case within the meaning of Section 306 of I.P.C. as the petitioner would not be benefited by the suicide of the deceased. The other offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is punishable under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (v) of 12. 13 VSJ Crl.P.No.3548 of 2020 the Act, gets attracted where a person, who does not belong to a member of Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribes, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. In the case on hand, a perusal of the entire allegations made in the complaint and the material on record would, prima facie, show that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner herein.. except bald allegations that the petitioner/accused abused the deceased in filthy language by touching his caste name. Even, if the entire allegations of the complaint are accepted to be true at their face value, they do not constitute the ingredients of the offence as alleged, more so, the incident took place in the room of the Petitioner’s Police Station, as such it cannot be said that the incident took place within public view, which is the main ingredient in Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (v) of the Act. In the above background of the case, this court is of the considered view that there were no specific allegations attributed against the petitioner. Therefore, since no offence is made out against the petitioner/A.1 specifically, continuation of criminal 13. 14 i., ^1^-, VSJ / Crl.P.No.3548 of 2020 r/, /■ proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law and hence, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/A.1 in Crime No.388 of 2020 on the file of Ohgole Taluk Police Station, Prakasam District, are hereby quashed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. SD/- P.VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTER //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Tor\ 1. The Station House Officer, Ongole Taluk Police Station, Prakasam District. 2. One CC to Smt Kavitha Gottipati, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies TK TAC T HIGH COURT DATED:11/02/2025 ORDER CRLk.No.3548 of 2020 N ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION