“v ,-APHC010088302021 Hi'B IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI B !L FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE k i M) \ ^ ‘ : PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1434 of 2021 Between: Sri. Ch. Anjaneyulu, S/o. Late Sri. Venkata Narasu, aged about 65 years, Retd. Employee, R/o. 26-13-79, Masid veedhi, NGO Colony, B.V.Nagar, Nellore 524004. ...Petitioner/Accused No.3 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. Smt. Chandra Sukanya Devi, W/o. Chandra Srinivasulu years, C/o.. T.Venkateswarlu, D.No.2-1-175, Gaddalagunta, Ongole, Prakasam District. of aged about 44 Near Water Tank, ...Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminai Petition the High Court may be pleased to Quash the proceedings in C.C.No.397/2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri, Prakasam District. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No.397/2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri pending disposal of the present criminal petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. K. Pallavi Counsel for Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri The Court made the following ORDER; APHC010088302021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) •I [3396] FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1434/2021 Between: 1.SRI. CH. ANJANEYULU, S/0. LATE SRI. VENKATA NARASU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RETD. EMPLOYEE, R/0. 26-13-79, MASID VEEDHI, NGO COLONY, B.V.NAGAR, NELLORE 524004. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 2.SMT CHANDRA SUKANYA DEVI, W/0. CHANDRA SRINIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS T.VENKATESWARLU, D.NO. 2-1-175, NEAR WATER TANK, GADDALAGUNTA, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): C/0. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused; 1.KPALLAVI Counsel for the Respondent/complalnant(S): 1.MADHAVA RAO NALLURI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court Made the Following Order: The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner herein/Accused No.3, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in C.C.No.397 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri, for the offences under Sections 199 200 and 420 read with 34 IPC. Heard Sri K.Pallavi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri 2. Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and 2 Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1/State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein/A3, who is the retired District Education Officer, has been implicated based on a complaint made by the respondent No.2, alleging that A3 failed to consider her request to include her name as the wife of A1 for the purpose of availing medical facilities under Arogya Sri, as per G.O. Ms. No. 174. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner was transferred on a regular basis from Guntur to Nellore on 17.11.2014, as per the proceedings of the Commissioner of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and there is no dishonest intention on the part of A3 in not considering the claim of respondent No.2, and the learned counsel prays this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others^, wherein at para 102, reads as follows; 5. “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power 1 AIR 1992 SC 604 / / could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of Justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 uncontroverted 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. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, there are no ingredients to attract the offence of cheating against the petitioner. In the said facts of the case and in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, continuation of proceedings as against the petitioner herein and the petitioner to undergo the rigmorale of entire trial would nothing but abuse of process of Court. 6. 4 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in respect of the petitioner herein/A3, in C.C.No.397 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri, are hereby quashed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. , Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTIONOFFICER 1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri, Prakasam District. 2. The Station House Officer, Varikuntapadu Police Station District. 3. The Station House Officer, Ongole I Town Police Station, Prakasam District. 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Amaravathi[OUT] 5. One CC to Smt. K Pallavi, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies //TRUE COPY// To Prakasam Pradesh, TK Ssiee V HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 ORDER CRLP No.1434 of 2021 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION