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 and his brother-in-law purchased 250 square yards of site each from the accused no.1 under a registered sale deed and then, the complaint sold his extent of the land to one Nadendla Siva Rama Krishna through his power of attorney. Thereafter, the brother-in-law sold away an extent of 100 square yards to one Koteswara Rao and 150 square yards to one Kurra Mangatayaru. However, the vendees of the complainant and his brother-in-law started pressurizing them stating that the land which they had sold, was claimed by some other persons in the year 2018. Thereafter, the case was registered for an offense under Section 420 IPC. The present petitioner has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in order to quash the proceedings against them.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that the accused no. 2 and 3 are the daughter and the son-in-law of the accused no.1 has nothing to do with the said transaction. It was furthermore contended that only to overcome the point of limitation in the civil case, the present case is filed.
Contentions of the Respondents
The Respondents contended that there exist specific allegations against the Petitioner that would attract the offense under Section 420 of the IPC. It was furthermore contended that in order to ascertain the truth, a trial is required.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that when a court is sitting under Section 482 authority, it is not acting as a court of appeals or a revision court. It must use its authority to impose substantial real justice, taking into account the particular facts and circumstances of each case. These authorities may only be used in cases when there are strong grounds for misusing the legal system or obvious unfairness, both of which run counter to sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.
The court relied upon the judgment titled State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others.
The court noted that even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offense or make out a case against Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3.
It was furthermore noted that the truth of the allegations against the accused No. 1 has to be decided only in trial and the ingredients of the offence alleged against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 are prima facie made out.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the proceedings couldn’t be quashed against accused No. 1 and quashed the proceedings against accused No. 2 and 3.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the Petition.
Case title: Bandaru Asha Latha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.3026 of 2020 & 6254 of 2021
Advocates for the Petitioner: Sri P.Mohan Rao for A.1 Sri N.Ravi Prasad for A.2 & A.3
Advocates for the Respondent: Sri Y.Kiran Kumar
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
