APHC010169562021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2808/2021 Between: M ASHOK, SDS ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND STATE OF AP, sds ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.791 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Special Mobile, Nellore, S.P.S.R.Nellore District (for brevity ‘the learned Trial Court’). 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence, let alone the alleged offences, and that he was falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the proceedings on the file of ‘the learned Trial Court’ are nothing but an abuse of process of law, and therefore, prayed to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the accusations against the petitioner are well-founded. She submits that the prosecution witnesses supported the version of LW.1 in their statements given to LW.6/Sub-Inspector of Police. According to learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, there are triable offences which require adducing of evidence. Hence, the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 4. On perusal of the record, it is alleged by Respondent No.2/LW.1 in the charge sheet filed in Crime No.194 of 2020 of Disha Women Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 448, 354-A, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’) that the Petitioner/Accused 3 took advantage of the situation and repeatedly stalked LW.1, threatening her with dire consequences. 5. It is further alleged that on 07.12.2020 at about 11:20 PM, the petitioner trespassed into the house of LW.1/Respondent No.2 and knocked on the door. When LW.1 questioned the person knocking and slightly opened the door, on seeing the petitioner, she tried to close it. By that time, the petitioner caught hold of the hand of LW.1 and pulled her outside. LW.1 escaped from the hands of the petitioner and dialled the police by calling 100. Later, the police rushed to the spot, and on seeing the police, the petitioner absconded from the spot. 6. It is also alleged that the petitioner called Respondent No.2 from two mobile phones and threatened her with dire consequences. He had informed some other persons related to Respondent No.2 that he had nude photos and videos of Respondent No.2 stored in a memory card and e-mail, and threatened Respondent No.2 that if she lodged a complaint against him, he would spoil her life and disturb the peace of her family. It is due to unbearable harassment and stalking by the petitioner, she lodged a report with the Disha Police Station. 7. In view of the specific allegations against the petitioner, which are the subject matter of adducing evidence and are triable in nature, this Court finds that there are no merits in this criminal petition for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.791 of 2021. 4 8. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the averments made in the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 for quashing the proceedings as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya)1, wherein at paragraph No.22, it is held that: “On the aspect of the powers of the Courts under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., it is settled that at the stage of quashing, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. Thus, the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. with respect to quashing is somewhat limited as the Court has to only consider whether any sufficient material is available to proceed against the accused or not. If sufficient material is available, the power under Section 482 should not be exercised.” 9. The case of the petitioner does not fall under any of the categories mentioned in the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2, wherein at paragraph Nos.102 & 103 held as under: “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 have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power 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 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2355 21992 Supp (1) SCC 335 5 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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 10. It is for the learned Magistrate to take an appropriate call as to whether Section 354-D of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is applicable to the case at the time of framing of charges, if they are not already framed as information is furnished by the learned counsel for both sides about the progress of the case. There are no merits in the petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of with a direction that ‘the learned Trial Court’ not to insist upon the personal presence of the petitioner unless it is otherwise specifically required. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 05.02.2026 PRA 6 63 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2808 of 2021 Date: 05.02.2026 PRA