IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1073 OF 2020 Between: Prathipati Bheemsai, S/o Venkatarao, Age 22 years, S.C Mala, Duddukuru Village, Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari District ...Petitioner / Accused AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Vijayawada. 2. State Sub-Divisional Police, Officer, Kovvur Sub-Division, Kovvur ...Complainant 3. Kum. Madathala Lavanya, D/o Kutumba Rao, Aged about 17 years, SC Mala, Duddukuru Village, Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Victim 4. Smt. Madathala Nagamani, W/o Kutumba Rao, Aged about 41 years SC Mala, Duddukuru Village, Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari District. 5. Madathala Kutumba Rao, also known as Krishna, S/o Dharmiah, 46 years, SC Mala, Cooly, YSR Street, Duddukuru Village, Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari District. Since 3'^'^ Respondent is Minor as such she is represented by her parents who are shown as 4‘^ and Respondents in the present case. ...Respondent / De-facto 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 pleased to call for the records in S.C. No.78 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act, 2012, West Godavari District, Eluru which was taken on file for the offences U/s 417, 377, 506 I.P.C and Sec.5(1) R/w 6 of Protection Of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012, LA. NO: 1 OF 2025 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 extend the interim stay order dated 07.11.2024. granted in Crl.P.No.1073 of 2020. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.N.M.Ranga Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents The Court made the following: 1 APHC010077362020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY. THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1073/2020 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Prathipati Bheemsai AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.TNMRANGARAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1 to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.78 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act 2012, Eluru registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 377, 506 IPC and Section 5(1) read with 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012. The case of the prosecution is that the 3^^ respondent lodged a 2. complaint against the accused No.1/petitioner herein and his father and mother alleging that she is aged about 16 years and 4 months by the date of complaint and the accused and his parents are residents of Duddukuru Village, Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari District and they belong to Mala Community. During the academic year 2013-14, while the 3’’^ respondent was studying 10 class, the petitioner developed intimacy with her stating that he loves her and he would marry her. On that pretext, the petitioner participated in sexual intercourse with her on several occasions in the absence of her parents at her residence. In the month of June, 2014 when she went to Guntur along with her cricket team for participating in the cricket tournament, the petitioner went there and took her to Bangalore and kept in a rented room where he lived while doing job in Bangalore for fifteen days, and then dropped her in Guntur. Thereafter, the 3"^^ respondent met her cricket team and returned home. While the matter being so, in the month of September 2014 the parents of 3 respondent who are 4**^ and 5*^ respondents knowing about the same, approached the parents of petitioner i.e., accused Nos.2 and 3 and requested them to perform the marriage of 3^^^ respondent with accused No.1. But, they refused stating that the 3”^^ respondent is a minor girl. Then, the parents of the 3^^ respondent placed the matter before the elders and petitioner/accused No.1 admitted his relationship with the 3' the respondent and agreed to marry her after she attains 18 years of age. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Child Welfare Committee and thereafter the petitioner refused to marry her on the ground that his parents are not willing to perform their marriage. Subsequently, on the advice of the elders, the respondents No.3 to 5 lodged a complaint and on receipt of such complaint, the crime was registered vide FIR No.21/2025 under Section 417, 376 and Section 6 Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 at Devarapalli Police Station. After due investigation by the S.T.P.O., charge sheet was filed vide S.C.No.78 of 2018 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act, 2012, Eluru, West Godavari District. of 3. On 18.04.2022, this Court passed the following interim order: “....there shall be stay of all further proceedings in SC No.78 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act, West Godavari District, Eluru. ” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 contends that the 3'"^ respondent is habituated in lodging such complaints and to prove the same, he has filed a similar complaint in Crime No.152 of 2015 of Devarapalli Police 4 Station filed by the 3^^ respodnent against one Gollapalli Siva @ Buddigadu, Gollapalli Ravi and Gollapalli Ashok under Sections 354, 323 read with 34 of IPC, Section 7 of POCSO Act, 2012. Said complaint has been filed against these persons with false allegations and ultimately the same has ended in acquittal. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are no grounds to quash the case against the petitioner. He would submit that the allegations made against the petitioner would squarely attract the offence alleged against him and therefore, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed against the petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. 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 against the petitioner in S.C.No.78 of 2018 on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act, 2012 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. 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 6. an 5 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. In “R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab^’’, 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 AIR-1960 SC 866 6 (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. 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. 8. 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 LaP'" 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 9. ^ AIR 1990 SC 494 ^1992 Supp(1)SCC 335 7 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. (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. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. As per the charge sheet, the allegations against the petitioners are that during the academic year 2013-14, while the 3'"'^ respondent was studying 10 10. th class, the petitioner/accused No.1 developed intimacy by stating that he would marry her and on several occasions, whenever he came to the house of his grandparents, he participated in sexual act with her in the absence of her parents at her house. He also took the S'"* respondent to Bangalore and kept her for 15 days in a rented home in which he lived while doing job and then dropped her in Guntur. Thereafter, when the 3'^^ respondent approached the petitioner and requested him to marry her, the petitioner/accuse d No.1 refused to marry her on the ground that accused Nos.2 and 3, who are his parents, have refused for the said marriage as she is a minor. 11. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the 3'"^ respondent is habitual of filing such cases under POCSO Act, however, the allegation in the present case is very serious in nature, as the 3^^ respondent was sexually abused on several occasions on the pretext of marring her, but, ultimately refused to marry her stating that accused Nos.2 and 3 parents of petitioner/accused No.1, refused to perform the said the ground that she is a minor. who are marriage on In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere into the matter and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial. However 12. considering the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the presence of accused No.l/petitioner herein, before the trial Court is dispensed with, except on those dates when the learned Judge feels the presence of petitioner/accused No.1 is necessary. 1 9 Accordingly, with the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed 13. of. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHAMMED RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER To. 1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act, 2012, West Godavari District, Eluru. 2. The Station House Office, Devarapalli Police Station, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. One CC to Sri T.N.M.Ranga Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Publip Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies. PR / HIGH COURT DATED:24/02/2025 ORDER rcr ^ * 07 APR 2C:3 Current Section CRLP.No.1073 of 2020 DISPOSING THE CRLP