' IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAT FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5028 OF 2022 Between: P. Anuradha, W/o. Narayana Raju, 44 yrs, Occ. Government Employee D.No. 13/503, Balisetty Veedhi, Vempalli Town and Mandal District. Y.S.R. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Through Proddaturu Rural PS, High Court of Judicature at Amaravathi. 2. Bukke Swarna Latha, D/o Sankar Naik, 42 yrs, Occ. Asst. Teacher, ZP High School, Yerraguntia, R/o C-101, Dhara Apartments, Mydhukur Road, Proddatur Mandal, Y.S.R. District, Kadapa ...RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT 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 for the relating to Spl.S.C. No. 38 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge-Cum-SC ST Court, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District and Quash the same. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further Spl.S.C.No. 38 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Judge-Cum-SC ST Court, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District. praying that in the proceedings in District This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Naidu Siva Rama Krishna, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010325082022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY [3396] TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5028/2022 Between; P.ANURADHA, W/0. NARAYANA RAJU, 44Y, OCC. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, D.NO. 13/503, BALISETTY VEEDHI, VEMPALLI TOWN AND MANDAL, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THROUGH PRODDATURU RURAL PS, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT AMARAVATHI. 2.BUKKE SWARNA LATHA, D/0 SANKAR NAIK, 42Y, OCC. ASST. TEACHER, ZP HIGH SCHOOL, YERRAGUNTLA, R/0 C-101, DHARA APARTMENTS, MYDHUKUR ROAD, PRODDATUR MANDAL, Y.S.R. DISTRICT, KADAPA ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.NAIDU SIVA RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. D KODANDARAMIREDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.2, seeking quashment of the proceedings against her in SPL.S.C.No.38 of 2022 on the 1 in short ‘Cr.P.C.’ 2 file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge-cum-SCST Court, Kadapa for the offences under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860^ and Section 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015^. Heard Sri N.Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the Petitioner, 2. Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1/State. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that there are no specific allegations against the Petitioner and she was falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel would further submit that, the allegations leveled against the Petitioners do not prima facie attract the ingredients of the alleged offences. There are no grounds to continue the proceedings against the Petitioner. Hence, prayed for quashment. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others'* and the judgment of this Court in G.Madhu Sudhana Rao vs. State of A.P. and others®. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that, there are specific allegations against the Petitioner which would attract the alleged ^ in short ‘I.P.C.’ ^ in short ‘SCSI Act’ ^ (2022) 6 see 509 ® 2024 see OnLineAP 621 3 offences and the truth or otherwise of the said allegations has to be revealed during trial. There are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner, at this stage, dismissal of the Petition. Hence, prayed for 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 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 6. 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. 7. In the case on hand, it is alleged in the complaint that. Respondent No.2 has been working as School Assistant in Z.P.Girls’ High School Yarraguntla. That being so, Accused No.1 used to follow her and on the promise of marrying her and used to exploit her sexually. He had also taken an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs from her and without her knowledge, he married Accused No.5 on 26.11.2020. When she questioned him, he 4 Stated that she belongs to lower caste, abused and beat her indiscriminately. Subsequently also, he used to meet her sexually and also threatened to do harm to her and her son if she reveals the same to anybody. She also consumed sleeping pills on 28.07.2021 and was rescued by the neighbours. When the matter was placed before the elders, Accused Nos.1 to 3 assured that Accused No.1 will have live-in relationship with Respondent No.2 and made an agreement to that effect. Thereafter, on a day, when Accused No.1 was with Respondent No.2, Accused Nos.2 to 4 came to her house, abused her in vulgar language in the name of her caste. Accused Nos.3 and 4 beat her with hands. For ready reference, Section 509 I PC is extracted hereunder: 8. ‘509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.—Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine. ” A bare perusal of the complaint, in the instant case, would reveal 9. Police after examination of the witnesses, having found that the that. Petitioner/Accused No.2 uttered some unparliamentary words against Respondent No.2 and thereby insulted her modesty, filed charge sheet against him for the alleged offences. The words used by the Petitioner against the Respondent No.2, which are mentioned in the complaint, cannot 5 0 even be spelt. As such, it can be said that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others®, wherein, a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the following principles of law:- 10. “57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council In the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; Hi) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; Iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); v) While examining an FIF^complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vl) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vil) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viil) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognized to secure the ends of Justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C. ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; 6 2021 see OnLine Se 315 ■i0 ■ ^ ^ 6!# 6 xj Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result In miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the Investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P.Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lai (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when It exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and Is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.’’ (emphasis supplied) In view of the above discussion and the judgment referred to supra. 11. this Court is of the view that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner are the aspects to be decided during trial. As there are specific allegations leveled against the Petitioner, this is not a proper stage to consider the genuineness of the said allegations. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioner are not helpful to the case of '■ h 7 the Petitioner, since the facts of the said cases are different from the facts of the present case. A petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be decided based on presumptioris and assumptions. This Court cannot evaluate the merits of the case at this stage, as while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court cannot conduct a mini trial and hence, the petition deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. 12. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR A J //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The IV Additional District Judge-Cum-SC ST Court, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District 2. Two CCs Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati 3. The Station House Officer, Proddaturu Rural Police Station, Y.S.R. Kadapa District 4. One CC to SRI. NAIDU SIVA RAMA KRISHNA Advocate [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies nm HIGH COURT DATED:07/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.5028 of 2022 ae 0 8 OCT 2D25 o m <59 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION