The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Complainant entered into a lease agreement with Pavan Developers Managing Directors S.V.Prasad Reddy and G.Prabhakar/ petitioner herein and given Rs. 5 Lakhs to the complainant and received permission to run petrol bunk from Indian Oil Corporation officials. However, he got to know after getting permission that the leaseholders had sold the subject land to some others. When he addressed the same to the leaseholders, he didn’t get any reply from them. Furthermore, when the complainant went to the house of the Petitioners, they refused to pay the money back, and then pushed him out beat him with his hands and legs, and abused him by touching his caste.
The complaint was registered for the offenses punishable under Sections 323, 420 read with 34 of I.P.C and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Act. Aggrieved by this, the present petition is filed by the Petitioner.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that the offense under Section 420 of the IPC is not attracted by mere breach of contract. It was furthermore submitted that the civil case is given the color of the criminal case. Also, concerning the offense under Section 323 of the IPC, no details about the part of the body, where the complainant suffered injuries were mentioned and to attract the offense under Section 3(1) (r) (s) of the Act, the public view is necessary, however, in the present case, the incident did not occur in the public view. The Petitioner relied upon the judgment titled Vijay Kumar Ghai & Others v. The State of West Bengal & Others.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent contended that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner and the truth will come out during the investigation only.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that simply reading Section 482 reveals that the Code intends for the High Court's inherent powers to remain unaffected and unrestricted in order to: (i) carry out any orders made under the Code; (ii) prevent abuse of any Court's process; or (iii) secure the ends of justice. A court does not operate as an appellate court or a court of revision while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction. Depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, it must use its authority to carry out genuine and substantial justice. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.
It was noted that the presence of dishonest intention is to be decided during the investigation only. The court can’t conduct a mini-trial at this stage.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the court can’t quash the proceedings at this stage while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the Petition.
Case Title: G Prabhakar V. State Of AP & Another
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 179/2020
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sodum Anvesha
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
