Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Katragadda Manoj Kumar vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 August, 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4673 and 4674 of 2021
COMMON ORDER:-
These Criminal Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") is filed seeking
quash of F.I.R in Crime No.600 of 2021 of Ongole Taluka Police
Station, Prakasham District, registered against the petitioners for
the offences punishable under Sections 143, 447, 506 r/w 149 IPC
and under Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.4673 of 2021 are A-
15, A-16 and A-17 and the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.4674
of 2021 is A-8 in the above crime. Therefore, these two petitions
are disposed of by a common order.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
On a report lodged by the 2nd respondent/de facto
complainant alleging that the petitioners herein along with other
accused formed into unlawful assembly and trespassed into his
property and threatened him with dire consequences and abused
him the name of his caste and insulted him, the aforesaid F.I.R
was registered against the petitioners. The said crime is now under
investigation.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
names of A-15, A-16 and A-17 are not at all mentioned in the F.I.R
and as such the launching of criminal prosecution against the
petitioners amounts to abuse of process of Court. He would submit
that even though the name of A-8 is mentioned in the F.I.R, as
there is inordinate delay of about two months in lodging the F.I.R
that the present F.I.R is liable to be quashed. He would also
submit that there is a dispute relating to the land and on account
of the said land dispute that the petitioners have been falsely
implicated in the above crime and based on the aforesaid ground,
he would pray for quash of the F.I.R registered against the
petitioners.
As regards the delay in lodging the F.I.R is concerned, he
would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Manoj
Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh1. A perusal of the said
judgment shows that there was a delay of five years in setting the
criminal law in motion. Therefore, in the said peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court held that it is fatal
to the case of the prosecution and that cognizance of the offence
cannot be taken on the basis of the said report, which was lodged
with inordinate delay. The facts of the said case are very much
distinguishable and the ratio in the judgment cannot be applied to
the present facts of the case.
A perusal of the contents of the F.I.R, as rightly pointed by
learned Additional Public Prosecutor clearly reveals that the names
of A-15, A-16 and A-17, who are the petitioners in Criminal
Petition No.4673 of 2021, are clearly mentioned in the F.I.R.
(2016) 9 SCC 1
Therefore, it cannot be said as contended by the learned counsel
for the petitioners that their names are not mentioned in the F.I.R.
The name of A-8, who is the petitioner in Criminal Petition
No.4674 of 2021, is also found in the F.I.R. The contents of the
F.I.R prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence.
Therefore, the matter requires investigation to find out the truth or
otherwise of the allegations set out in the F.I.R. In the judgment
relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners cited above
itself it is held that whether an offence has been disclosed or not,
must necessarily depends on the facts and circumstances of each
case. If on consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is
satisfied that an offence is disclosed, it will normally not interfere
with the investigation into the offence and will generally allow the
investigation into the offence to be completed in order to collect
materials for proving the offence. Further, Apex Court also held
that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C shall be exercised
by the High Court judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily.
Therefore, as noticed supra, in the present case, the
contents of the F.I.R prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable
offence, which requires investigation, this Court absolutely does
not find any valid legal ground warranting its interference under
Section 482 Cr.P.C in exercise of its inherent powers either to
quash the F.I.R or to interdict the investigation. Therefore, both the
Criminal Petitions lack merit.
In the result, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed.
However, as the above offences registered against the
petitioners are all punishable with less than seven (07) years
period of imprisonment, the Investigating Officer is directed to
follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41A Cr.P.C.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal
Petitions, shall stand closed.
______________________________________________
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date: 18.08.2021
AKN
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4673 and 4674 of 2021
Date: 18-08-2021
AKN
