APHC010652542023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10058/2023 Between: 1. DR G SAMYUKTHA, W/O DR. NARENDRA KUMAR JAKKA, AGED 44 YEARS, OCC NIL, D.NO. 1-8-183, BALASAMUDRAM, HANUMAKONDA, WARANGAL DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATI. 2. DR NARENDRA KUMAR JAKKA, S/O J. RAMAKRISHNA, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC GENERAL PHYSICIAN AND CARDIOLOGIST, 26-4-864/G2, NEAR SREENIVASA THEATRE ROAD, SRI BALAJI NAGAR, HINDUPUR - 515 201, ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to order to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.225 of 2016 the file of the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Hindupur, Anantapur District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS 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 the appearance of the Petitioner in C.C. No.225 of 2016 on the file of the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First SRK, J Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023 2 Class at Hindupur, Anantapur District, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition; and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. T B L MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. SURESH BABU CHAPALA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3. LEGAL AID The Court made the following: SRK, J Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023 3 O R D E R This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’) has been filed by the petitioner/Accused, to quash the charge sheet in Calendar Case No.225 of 2016 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, arising out of a case in Crime No.110 of 2016 of Hindupur I Town Police Station, Anantapuramu, registered against the petitioner/Accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’). 2. 2. The allegations levelled as against the petitioner/ accused in the charge sheet, in brief, are that, the marriage of respondent No.2/de facto complainant with the petitioner/accused was solemnized in the year 2006 and they both led marital life for a period of 2½ years, and later disputes cropped up between them, on the pretext that the petitioner/accused was alleged to have harassed and ill-treated the respondent No.2/de facto complainant; that several mediations held proved futile; that at about seven years prior to the subject incident, the petitioner/accused was alleged to have discarded the respondent No.2/de facto complainant and she started residing with her parents at Hanumakonda. The respondent No.2/de facto complainant was said to have filed O.P.No.791 of SRK, J Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023 4 2013 on the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioner/accused, seeking decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage performed with petitioner/accused and the same is pending. The petitioner/accused also said to have filed Maintenance Case No.85 of 2010 on the file of the Jurisdictional Magistrate Court, concerned for grant of maintenance and the same is also pending. (b) While so, on 19.05.2016 at about 8.00 a.m. the petitioner/accused was alleged to have trespassed into the house of respondent No.2/de facto complainant, situated at Sreenivasa Theatre road, Hindupur Town and was alleged to have threatened him with dire consequences to withdraw the divorce OP; that again, on the same day at about 11.00 a.m., the petitioner/accused was alleged to have trespassed into Pranavi Heart Care Centre, run by the respondent No.2/de facto complainant, and threatened him with dire consequences, to withdraw the divorce OP filed by him, in the presence of patients and caused obstruction to respondent No.2/ de facto complainant in discharging his legitimate duty. L.W2/ B.Manjula, L.W3/M.Gayathri and L.W4/B.Vijay Kumar are the eyewitnesses to the said incident. The incident was reported to police on 23.05.2016 and the same was registered as a case in SRK, J Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023 5 Crime No.110 of 2016 of Hindupur I Town Police Station, Anantapuramu, for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 of IPC and investigation into. After completion of investigation, L.W5/B.T.Venkateswarlu, Sub-Inspector of Police, Hindupur I Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the petitioner/accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would contend that the present case was foisted erroneously at the instance of respondent No.2/de facto complainant only to harass the petitioner/accused. According to learned counsel, the petitioner/ accused made an attempt to join with her husband i.e. respondent No.2/de facto complainant and there is no mens rea or criminal intention attributable to the petitioner/accused to attract the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 of IPC. Learned counsel would further contend that prima facie no case was made over as against the petitioner/accused. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/de facto complainant would contend that the petitioner/accused used to harass the respondent No.2/de facto complainant and left the conjugal home without there being any reason, and on that, the respondent No.2/de facto complainant filed O.P.No.791 of 2013 on the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad for decree SRK, J Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023 6 of divorce and due to those matrimonial disputes, the petitioner/ accused trespassed into the house of respondent No.2/de facto complainant at 8.00 a.m. on 19.05.2016 and again trespassed into the private clinic run by respondent No.2/de facto complainant at 11.00 a.m. on the same day for the second time and threatened him with dire consequences to withdraw the divorce OP filed by the respondent No.2/de facto complainant. The said offence was witnessed by the staff, working in the clinic and there is prima facie case is made out as against the petitioner/accused. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1/State reiterates the argument of learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant and prays the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant. Perused the entire material available on record. 7. The offences that are alleged as against the petitioner/ accused are punishable under Sections 448 and 506 of IPC. If any of the acts to interfere with another’s peaceful enjoyment of SRK, J Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023 7 property, either movable or immovable, such acts amount to trespass. If trespass is committed without criminal intention, it is dealt with under the law of torts. But, if trespass is committed with the criminal intention to cause harm to anyone, then it is criminal trespass. According to Section 441 of IPC, criminal trespass is committed, if a person unlawfully enters or, if lawfully entered, remains there unlawfully intending to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult, or annoy any person in possession of such property. It is not necessary that the annoyance resulting from trespass be instantaneous, it may be subsequent. 8. The essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC are that the accused threatened someone with injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person, reputation or property of another in whom the former was interested and the accused did so with intent to cause alarm to the victim of offence and to cause the victim to perform any act which he was not legally bound to do. 9. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court is also conscious SRK, J Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023 8 of the fact 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 and that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the report. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in State of Haryana Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and ors.1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “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 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 channelized 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 F.I.R. do not 1 AIR 1992 SC 604 SRK, J Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023 9 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.” 10. Now, it has to be seen as to whether the allegations in the FIR/charge sheet, even if they are taken at their face value and SRK, J Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023 10 accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner/accused. 11. Indisputably, petitioner/accused and respondent No.2/de facto complainant are wife and husband and there were matrimonial disputes pending between them. The allegations levelled against the petitioner/accused in the charge sheet filed in Calendar Case No.225 of 2016 by the Investigating Officer are that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant was meted out cruelty in the hands of petitioner/accused, and about seven years prior to the date of incident of the alleged subject crime, the petitioner/accused was alleged to have left the matrimonial home and as such, the respondent No.2/de facto complainant constrained to file O.P.No.791 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad. 12. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the petitioner/accused filed copy of Common Order passed in O.P.Nos.791 of 2013 and 1721 of 2015 by the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad. As stated in the preceding paragraphs, O.P.No.791 of 2013 was filed by the respondent No.2/ de facto complainant under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking decree of divorce. On the other hand, SRK, J Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023 11 O.P.No.1721 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. Vide Common Order dated 28.08.2017, the learned Judge held that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant failed to establish that the petitioner/accused herein wilfully deserted him and thereby, dismissed the O.P.No.791 of 2013 filed by the respondent No.2/de facto complainant and consequently, allowed the O.P.No.1721 of 2015 filed by the petitioner/accused herein and directed the respondent No.2/de facto complainant herein to take the petitioner/accused along with her daughter into his company within one month from the date of the said common order and lead conjugal life. 13. A perusal of the contents of the report lodged by the respondent No.2/de facto complainant goes to show that on 19.05.2016 at about 8.00 a.m., the petitioner/accused was alleged to illegally trespassed into the house of respondent No.2/de facto complainant and quarrelled with him. The contents of the report further goes to show that again on the same day at about 11.00 a.m., the petitioner/accused was alleged to have illegally trespassed into the clinic, run by the respondent No.2/de facto complainant, and alleged to have abused him severely in the presence of SRK, J Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023 12 patients and obstructed his duties and was also alleged to have threatened the respondent No.2/de facto complainant with dire consequences to withdraw the divorce case filed by him. 14. A perusal of the contents of the counter filed by the petitioner/accused in O.P.No.791 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, goes to show that the petitioner/accused acceded that on 19.05.2016 she along with her daughter went to the house and clinic of respondent No.2/de facto complainant out of anxiety, as her daughter was asking about her father, but the respondent No.2/de facto complainant influenced the local police and got registered the crime against the petitioner/ accused as if she criminally trespassed into the clinic and threatened him with dire consequences. 15. The learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad observed that P.W1, in O.P.No.791 of 2013, who is respondent No.2/de facto complainant herein, in his cross- examination, refused to take the petitioner/accused herein and his daughter into his fold by stating that he lost love and affection towards them and in turn, the petitioner/accused expressed her willingness to join the company of respondent No.2/de facto complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner/accused filed O.P.No.1721 SRK, J Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023 13 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad for restitution of conjugal rights. Though, the respondent No.2/de facto complainant is reluctant to take his wife i.e. petitioner/accused and his daughter into his conjugal fold and filed OP seeking for decree of divorce, the petitioner/accused with a view to resume her conjugal life with respondent No.2/de facto complainant having regard to the future of her daughter, appears to have taken a step by going into the clinic run by the respondent No.2/de facto complainant to have a word with her husband in regard to their matrimonial issue and such act done by the petitioner/accused cannot be termed as criminal trespass. Indeed, as per the evidence of petitioner/accused as R.W1, in OP Nos.791 of 2013 and 1721 of 2015, she acceded that on 19.05.2016 she along with her daughter went to the house and clinic of respondent No.2/de facto complainant out of anxiety as her daughter was asking about her father, who is none other than the respondent No.2/de facto complainant. Having regard to the life and future of her daughter, to show the respondent No.2/de facto complainant to her daughter, it is quite natural for the petitioner/accused to go to the house and clinic of the respondent No.2/de facto complainant, it would not amount to criminal trespass by the petitioner/accused. Furthermore, it was alleged that the petitioner/accused threatened SRK, J Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023 14 the respondent No.2/de facto complainant with dire consequences and abused him in filthy language. Prima facie there is no material on record to show as to what are the words spoken to, by the petitioner/accused threatening the respondent No.2/de facto complainant. Though, it was alleged that the petitioner/accused threatened the respondent No.2/de facto complainant to withdraw the divorce OP filed by him, as discussed in the preceding paragraph, to resume the conjugal life with respondent No.2/ de facto complainant might have had a wordy altercation with her husband i.e. petitioner/accused, and merely because the petitioner/ accused used such words, it does not amount to threatening the respondent No.2/de facto complainant to do away with his life, for the reason that, the respondent No.2/de facto complainant is none other than husband of petitioner/accused and any act that was done by the petitioner/accused on the date of the incident, is only out of anxiety as her daughter was asking about her father. 16. There is no prima facie case to prove that the act of the petitioner/accused would attract the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 of IPC. When such is the case, there is no point in allowing her to face the entire ordeal of trial. In view of the SRK, J Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023 15 aforesaid circumstances, this Court is convinced and quashes the proceedings in respect of petitioner/accused. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Calendar Case No.225 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, as against the petitioner/accused, are quashed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 31st March, 2026. DNB