1 APHC010035692021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 534/2021 Between: Karanam Ramesh Babu and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. P J THEJA SAAI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3 in Crime No.55 of 2020 dated 11.11.2020 of Women Police Station, Tirupathi, Chittoor District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”) and Section 3(2)(ii) of Schedule Cast (for short “SC”) and Schedule Tribe (for short “ST”) (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Petitioners herein are the accused Nos.2 & 3. Respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint alleging that while she was studying B.Tech, A1, who is studying B.Tech in JNTU, came to her college, on project work, and got acquaintance with her and used to visit her house now and then. In the year 2013, A1 and the de-facto complainant went to U.S.A for pursuing their higher studies. Both of them took an apartment on rent and started residing therein. While so, when their acquaintance turned into love, they decided to marry each other, and since then they are in living relationship. A1 took Rs.10,00,000/- from the de-facto complainant on different occasions under the premise that they are going to marry. Whenever, the de- facto complainant asks about their marriage, A1 used to reply that he wants to discuss about their love with his parents and then proceed for marriage. While things stood thus, in October, 2020, A1 left U.S.A and came back to India by leaving her alone. When the de-facto complainant asked A1 why he left her 3 alone, he replied that when he informed his parents about their love, they refused for their marriage as she belongs to SC-Mala community. Consequently, the de-facto complainant along with her paternal uncle and some elders went to the house of A1 and asked about their marriage, but, they refused for the marriage on the premise that she belongs to SC community. Hence, the de-facto complainant lodged a report and the same is registered as a case in Crime No.55 of 2020 of Women Police Station, Tirupati for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 of I.P.C and Section 3(2)(ii) of Schedule Case and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The present criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3 in Crime No.55 of 2020 of Women Police Station, Tirupati, on the ground that the allegations raised in the FIR against the petitioners are very vague and did not mention any proven facts about the active involvement of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3. It is further stated that the petitioners have been residing in India and they have no role as in the commission of the alleged incident that took place in the U.S.A. Even according to the FIR, no date was mentioned as to on which date the de-facto complainant came from U.S.A and on which date she went to the house of the accused. The entire case facts clearly show that only to harass the petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3, the de-facto complainant lodged a false case. Hence, prays to allow the petition. 4 4. Heard Sri Ganta Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the alleged acts of the petitioners is sufficient to hold that the petitioners have committed offences much less the alleged offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 I.P.C, Section 3(2)(ii) of SC and ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and requested to dismiss the petition. 6. Considering 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 against the petitioners in Crime No.55 of 2020 of Women PS Tirupati, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 7. 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 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 5 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. 8. 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 Punjab1”, 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 of justice; (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; (iii) 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. 1 AIR 1960 SC 866 6 9. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the 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 Kumar2” 10. In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3” 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 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: 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 (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. (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. (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. 11. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 12. The main allegation made in the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant is that, after moving to the U.S.A along with A1 for pursuing higher studies, they were in living relationship and the A1 took Rs.10,00,000/- from the de-facto complainant on different occasions under the premise that 8 they are going to marry. Abruptly, in October, 2020, A1 left U.S.A and came back to India by leaving her alone. When the de-facto complainant asked A1 why he left her alone, he replied that when he informed his parents about their love and that she belongs to SC-Mala community, they refused for their marriage. Thereafter, when the de-facto complainant along with her paternal uncle and some elders went to the house of the A1 and asked about their marriage, the family of the A1 refused for their marriage as she belongs to SC community. Hence, report came to be lodged against the petitioners/A2 & A3 herein. 18. A perusal of the allegations mentioned in the complaint would show that the entire episode stated by the de-facto complainant is about the acquaintance and relationship between the A1 and the de-facto complainant. But, did it not discloses any involvement of the petitioners/A2 & A3, exhibiting a bald allegation against them being the parents of the A1 except that none of the allegations made against the petitioners/A2 & A3, there is no prima facie material or evidence available to substantiate the allegations against the petitioners/A2 & A3. In the absence of the specific allegations against the petitioners/A2 & A3 about their active involvement, in the alleged offences continuation of criminal proceedings against them would amount to abuse of process of Court. Hence, the criminal petition deserves to be allowed. 9 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A2 & A3 herein in Crime No.55 of 2020 of Women Police Station, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 06.01.2025 ANS 10 188 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 534/2021 Date: 06.01.2025 ANS