) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV, MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE r PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10249 OF 2022 Between: Gandavarapu Ramana, S/o late Sadhu, aged , R/o D.No. 2-20/1 ZPH School, Visakhapatnam District, A.P. , near BC Colony, Anandapauram Village & Mandal ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED N0.1 AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. Smt. Pilla Bhargavi, W/o Pilla Vasudeva Rao, aged about 36, R/o D.No. Flat No.303, Sai Venkata Mohan Nivas, Madhurawada Village, Viskhapatnam, AP-530048 Revallapalem ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal the High Court pleased to Quash the Petition, proceedings in Crime No. 405 /2021 Visakhapatnam city and section 8 of the dated 23-10-2021 of Anandapuram Police Station under sections 354(A), 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of I.P.C POCSO Act of 2012. \ LA. NO: 2 OF Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal the High Court may be pleased to Petition, stay all the further proceedings in Crime 23-10-2021 of Anandapuram Police Station No. 405/2021 dated Visakhapatnam city and District. LA. NO: 1 OF 2027 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal the High Court may be pleased to Petition, dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the crime No. 405 of 2021 Police Station, Visakhapatnam city. dated 23-10-2021 of Anandapuram This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum Of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Alladi Radhakrishna, Advocate for the Petitioner Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Public Prosecutor of High on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: T’ APHC010698782022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10249/2022 Between: GANDAVARAPU RAMANA, S/0 LATE SADHU, AGED , f 20/1, NEAR ZPH SCHOOL, BC COLONY, ANANDAPAURAM VILLAGE 86 MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AP. R/0 D.NO. 2- ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PROSECUTOR, HIGH AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.SMT PILLA BHARGAVI, W/0 PILLA VASUDEVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 36, R/0 D.NO. FLAT NO.303, SAI VENKATA MOHAN NIVAS, MADHURAWADA, REVALLAPALEM VILLAGE, VISKHAPATNAM AP- 530048 REP. BY ITS PUBLIC COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.ARADHAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.405 of 2021 of Anandapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam City registered for the offences under Sections 354-A, * for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 323, 506 and 509 read with 34 of the Indian of the Protection of Children from Penal Code, 1860^ and Section 8 Sexual Offences Act, 2012^ Krishna, learned 2. Heard Sri A.Radha Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi No. 1/State. counsel for the Petitioner Prosecutor for Respondent none appeared and learned Assistant Public Inspite of service of notice on behalf of Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the falsely implicated in the present Petitioner would submit that case. Learned counsel No.2 filed O.S.No.306 Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam the Petitioner would further submit of 2021 on the file of against the wife was that the husband of Respondent the Court of VI Additional of the Petitioner and another for and the same is pending. Learned the civil dispute between them the Petitioner with false that the present complaint Learned counsel against the Petitioner, abuse of process of law. cancellation of possessory sale agreement counsel would further submit that the present complaint has to settle been lodged against allegations. Learned counsel would further submit the alleged incident, no pr/ma facie offence is made out has been filed 12 days after would finally submit that as such, continuation of proceedings against them iIS an 4. Per contra, learned Assistant the father of the victim filed retaliation of the towards the victim. There Public Prosecutor a civil suit against the wife would submit that of the Petitioner, in committed the alleged offence against the Petitioner as same, the Petitioner has are specific allegations raised ^ for short ‘IPC’ ’ for short‘POCSO Act’ 3 and the veracity of the same has to be revealed during investigation and in view of stay granted by this Court, no investigation has been done. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner, Hence, prayed for dismissal of the Petition. at this stage. 5. Having heard the submissions of the learned the parties, now the point that would counsel representing both emerge for determination is; Whether there are any justifiable grounds for proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in Crime No. 405 of 2021 of Anandapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam City? Determination by the Court quashment of the 6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that that inherent powers of the High Court the Code envisages 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 ofJustice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction i functioning as a court of appeal IS not 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. The present complaint has been lodged by Respondent the mother of the victim girl alleging that, on 11.10.2021 at about 6.53 when the husband and daughter of Respondent No.2 a holiday for her daughter, the Petitioner herein No.2, who is a.m., went for site seeing as it and others dragged the was 4 J Victim out of the car, threw her cell phone her. They also tried to abuse the vi pushed her and threatened to kill victim and used abusive words and also pushed her by placing hand on her chest. The Petitioner also tore the husband of Respondent No.2 and beat him the shirt of threatened to kill both of them and bury them. As seen from the material placed learned counsel for Respondent No.2 a suit in O.S.No.306 of 2021 Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam cancel the possession sale other reliefs and the that, in order to bring the Petitioner been lodged. 8. on record, as rightly put by the the husband of Respondent No.2 filed on the file of the Court of VI Additional Senior against the wife of the Petitioner and another to agreement-cum-general power of attorney and same is pending. It is the contention of the Petitioner to their terms, the present complaint has 9. The contents of the complaint disclose that there made against the Petitioner i are specific allegations in the commission of the aiieged offences. Admittedly, stay has also been granted in the present petition and as such, no investigation has been conducted. The veracity of the allegations raised against the Petitioner has to be reveaied during investigation. The contention of the Petitioner that the present compiaint has been lodged with a delay of 12 days, is not per se Therefore, at this stage, this Court the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P. of the guidelines mentioned by the Hon’ble a ground to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner. cannot conduct a mini trial while deciding C. The case does not fall under Apex Court in State of Haryana any T 5 and others v. Bhajania! and others'^. There the proceedings against the Petitioner dismissal. are no merits for quashment of and hence, the petition deserves 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. 4 AIR 1992 SC 604 Sd/- K.KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Anandapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam city and District. 2. One CO to Sri A Radhakrishna, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two GO’S to The Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies GPC RAM . / HIGH COURT DATED: 10/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.10249 of 2022 DISMISSING THIS CRLP