IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1837 OF 2019 Between: 1. Diviti Ramesh S/o Linganna, aged about 40 MahantapuramVillage, Kundurpi Mandal, Anantapuram Dist. 2. Diviti Meenaksh S/o D. years, Ramesh, aged about 35 MahantapuramVillage, Kundurpi Mandal, Anantapuram Dist. years 3. Borappagari Sekhar S/o Guddi Lingappa, aged about 26 MahantapuramVillage, Kundurpi Mandal, Anantapuram Dist. 4. Diviti Purushotham S/o Linganna @ Beeseppa, aged about 25 years, MahantapuramVillage, Kundurpi Mandal, Anantapuram Dist. Eeranna S/o Late Mallaiah years. 5. B. aged about 56 years MahantapuramVillage, Kundurpi Mandal, Anantapuram Dist. 6. Budappa mamatha W/o Eeranna, aged about 37 years, MahantapuramVillage, Kundurpi Mandal, Anantapuram Dist. 7. Lakshmampalli Mohan S/o Mallarappa, aged about 30 MahantapuramVillage, Kundurpi Mandal, Anantapuram Dist. 8. Lakshmampalli years. Ravi S/o Mallappa, aged about 27 MahantapuramVillage, Kundurpi Mandal, Anantapuram Dist. years. 9. Lakshmampalli Eeranna S/o Mailarappa, aged about 38 years, MahantapuramVillage, Kundurpi Mandal, Anantapuram Dist. 10. Kuruba Erakka W/o D.Linganna, aged about 52 years, MahantapuramVillage, Kundurpi Mandal, Anantapuram Dist. 11. Kuruba Maluramma W/o Malurappa, 45 years, MahantapuramVillag e, Kundurpi Mandal, Anantapuram Dist. ? -ii i ...PETITIONER / ACCUSED AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through SHO., Kundurpi P.S., Ananthapuram Dist., Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 2. Kuruba Ganganna S/o Eeranna, Cultivation resident of Mahantapuram Village, Kundurpi Mandal, Ananthapuram District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 To quash the proceedings in Crime No.03/2019 dated 15.01.2019 on the file of SHO., Kundurpi P.S., Ananthapuram Dist. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2019 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 stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.03/2019* dated 15.01.2019 on the file of SHO., Kundurpi P.S., Ananthapuram Dist! including the appearance of the accused till the disposal of the main quash petition. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B * Shaik Mohd Aquib Hussain, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following ORDER : ^ APHC010086192019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] V, TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1837/2019 Between: D.ramesh and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.B SHAIK MOHD AQUIB HUSSAIN ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ^ ORDER: The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in Crime No.03/2019, dated 15.01.2019 on the file of Station House Officer, Kundurpi Police Station, Anantapuramu District against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 323, 447, 448 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 11 and the 2"^ respondent is the defacto complainant. The 2"'^ respondent has submitted a complaint on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalyanadurgam stating that he is the executive member of Sree Milara Lingeswara Khadi Rural Development Association, Mahanthapuram village, Kundurpi Mandal which was registered vide Reg.No. 129/2012, dated 11.04.2012 under the A.P. Society Registration Act, 35 of 2001 and that the said association consists of nine members and four executive members. The Government has sanctioned an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- for the development of the association as well as the weavers welfare for the community of Kuruba. But, the accused No.1, who is the president of the said association has utilized the said funds for construction of his house. The 1®‘ accused has misappropriated the funds sanctioned to the association without conducting the meeting and informing the executive body. He has performed the said act by forgery of signatures of the executive body before the State Bank of India, Kalyanadurgam branch. The 2"*^ respondent along with Joint Secretary and another members of the association have submitted the same to the Manager of the bank on 04.08.2018, who after verification has concluded that the accused has committed fraud and accordingly, directed the accused No.1 to close the accounts of all the members of the association. While so, on 05.08.2018, all the accused herein visited the house of the 2'^'^ respondent and beat him with hands, legs and abused in filthy language and thereafter, dragged him to the house of one Masala Mallikarjuna where, all the accused have trespassed into the house of Masala Mallikarjuna and beat him with hands and legs. i Immediately, the 2"^^ respondent has approached the Station House Officer, '' Kundurpi for filing complaint against the accused the 2"^^ respondent has filed the present complaint on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalyanadurgam requesting to take action against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 323, 447, 448 read with Section 34 of IPC. The court below, vide CF.No.22859 of 2018, dated 11.01.2019 has forwarded the said complaint to Kundurpi Police Station, Anantapuramu for registration of case and investigation. Accordingly, the police have registered a case against the petitioners herein in Crime No.03 of 2019, challenging which the present petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the learned Judge has not applied his mind while passing the impugned orders dated 11.01.2019 as he has not taken into consideration whether there facie allegations and material for the alleged offences warranting investigation by the Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the learned Judge has failed to see that the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., can be exercised only if the complaint discloses the commission of the offence and also stated that as the learned Judge has committed a serious illegality in directing the Police to register a crime, which amounts to taking cognizance of an offence without even prima facie enquiry, the order dated 11.01.2019 in C.F.No.2259 of 2018 passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalyanadurgam is liable to be quashed. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioners would constitute offence punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 323, 447, 448 read with Section 34 of IPC., accordingly, the learned Magistrate has rightly forwarded the said complaint to the Police for further investigation.Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. as no action was initiated. 3. are pnma any 4. "N % 5. When the criminal petition came up for hearing on 11.01.2024, this Court has passed an interim stay of all further proceedings for a period of eight weeks which was also extended on subsequent occasions. 6. 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.03/2019, dated 15.01.2019 on the file of Station House Officer, Kundurpi Police Station, Anantapuramu District are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction 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 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. 7. 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: 8. 'I 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 ofjustice; (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; (Hi) 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. 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 Kumai^ ” 9. ^AIR 1960 SC 866 ^ AIR 1990 SC 494 In "State of Haryana v. BhajanLal^" 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: “(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 prime facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 10. (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 \A/ithin 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 ^ 1992 Supp (1) see 335 \ for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with private and personal grudge. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like a view to spite him due to 11. to examine the case on hand. 12. The facts of the petition and the contents of the complaint in dispute. After receiving the said compiaint, the Magistrate has forwarded the same to Kundurpi Poiice Station for further investigation by passing the following order in CF.No.2259 of 2018 dated 11.01.2019; are not The complainant filed a complaint against accused (1) Diviti Ramesh Aged about 40 Years..: Years which S/0. Linganna, (11) Kuruba Maluramma W/O.Malurappa Aged 45 is forwarded here with under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for registration, investigation and filling report posted on 18-1-2019. ” 13. It can be seen that the learned Magistrate has passed the dated 11.01.2019 while exercising power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. For better understanding, the aforesaid Section is extracted hereunder; order 156. Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable police station may, witout the order of case.-(l) Any officer in charge of a a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. case (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called question on the ground that the case under this section to investigate. in was one which such officer was not empowered (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 above-mentioned.” may order such an investigation as 14. The scope of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases. The Apex Court in MaksudSaiyed Vs. State ofGujaraf. has examined the requirement of the application of mind by the Magistrate before under Section 156(3) and held that where jurisdiction is exercised complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 Cr.P.C exercising jurisdiction on a .. the ^ (2008) 2 see (eri) 692 Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. In the order dated 11.01.2019 (extracted under paragraph 12), this Court finds no reasons for ordering such investigation. The direction under Section 156(3) is to be issued only after application of mind by the Magistrate and when the Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone instance of process and finds a case made out to proceed forthwith, direction under the said provision is issued. In other words, where on account of credibility of information available, or weighing the interest of justice it is considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation, such a direction is issued. Cases where Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where the Magistrate has yet to determine the existence of sufficient ground to proceed.(The Apex Court in Ramdev Food Products Private Limited Vs. State of Gujaraf) 15. t The same principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mrs.Priyanka Srivastava and another V. State of U.P. and others^, stating that the learned Magistrate has to remain vigilant with regard to the allegations made and the nature of allegations and not to issue directions without proper application of mind. The Magistrate has also to bear 16. ^ Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007 ®(2015) 6 see 287 in mind that sending the matter would be conducive to justice and then he may pass the requisite order. I Even in the case on hand, the learned Magistrate has mechanically referred the complaint exercising the powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., without even giving any reason as to why such investigation has been ordered. Merely stating that the Magistrate has reviewed the complaint, examined the documents, heard the complainant and finding it fit that a further investigation would be necessary, is insufficient. The order must also express the motive behind the Magistrate’s decision to direct an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. As such, this Court feels that continuation of the proceedings in Crime No.03/2019, dated 15.01.2019 on the file of Station House Officer, Kundurpi Police Station, Anantapuramu District against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law. 17. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The order dated 11.01.2019 in C.F.No.2259 of 2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg and the consequentially registered FIR No.03/2019, dated 15.01.2019 on the file of Station House Officer, Kundurpi Police Station, Anantapuramu District are quashed. 18. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition, shall SD/- A.VIJAY BABU assistant registrar stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kalyanadu?am. 1. The 2. The Station House Officer, Kundurpi P.S., Ananthapuram District Mohd Aquib Hussain Advocate [OPUC] Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at 3. One CC to Sri. B Shaik 4. TwoCCstothe Public Amaravathi [OUT] 5. THREE CD COPIES / HIGH COURT DATED:28/01/2025 !#■ ORDER CRLP.No.1837 of 2019 g 2 8 FEB 2025 ^ . Current Section . ^ o ALLOWING THE CRLP