Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P.Ashok Gajapathi Raju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 30 December, 2021
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: Crl.P.No.7498 of 2021
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No. NOTE.
02. 30.12.2021 DR,J
I.A.No.01 of 2021
Dispensed with.
Crl.P.No.7498 of 2021
The criminal petition is filed under section
482 of Cr.P.C praying the Court to quash the
F.I.R.No.279 of 2021 dated 22.12.2021 of
Nellimarla police station, Vizianagaram District
which is registered for the offences under
section 427, 353, r/w 34 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submit
that on perusal of the complaint, the ingredients
of section 353 IPC did not attract. The
allegations were made in the complaint dated
22.12.2021 by the executive officer are vague
and there are no specific overt acts which attract
the ingredients under section 353 IPC. Even
according to the allegations made in the
complaint that the petitioner has removed the
flowers engrained on the inscription and pulled
the cloth cotton fixed on the inscription and
vaguely they have stated that the petitioner has
obstructed them while discharging their duties.
In the entire complaint they have not stated
what duties they are performing and how they
have obstructed the defacto complainant.
To support his contention learned counsel
for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in between Manik
Taneja and another vs. State of Karnataka
and another (2015 7 SCC 423) in which it is
recited that:
So far as the issue regarding the registration of FIR
under Section 353 IPC is concerned, it has to be seen
whether by posting a comment on the Facebook of the
traffic police, the conviction under that Section could be
maintainable. Before considering the materials on record,
we may usefully refer to Section 353 IPC which reads as
follows:- "353. Assault or criminal force to deter public
servant from discharge of his duty.- Whoever assaults or
uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in
the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with
intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his
duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything
done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful
discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both."
Learned counsel submitted that as per the
ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
citation referred above, it clearly stated that
unless and until the accused assaults the public
servant or uses criminal force to any person
being a public servant in the execution of his
duties as such public servant. But in the instant
case, on perusal of the complaint it is silent that
what functions they are doing and what manner
he has prevented and what force he has used to
prevent the complainant. Hence the ratio
decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court squarely
applies to the present case.
Per contra, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has
submitted that in the complaint the executive
officer had clearly stated that the petitioner has
interfered with the function of laying of
foundation stone at Bodikonda and infact the
petitioner has obstructed the complainant to
perform such function. Hence the ingredients of
section 353 IPC clearly attracts the present case
and to support his contention he has relied on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
between Kaptan Singh vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others (2021 9 Supreme court
cases 35) in which it was recited that:
In the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (Supra) after
considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal
(Supra), it is held by this Court that exercise of powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is an
exception and not a rule. It is further observed that
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though
wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with
caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests
specifically laid down in section itself. It is further
observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible
at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Similar view has been
expressed by this Court in the case of Arvind Khanna
(Supra), Managipet (Supra) and in the case of XYZ
(Supra), referred to hereinabove.
Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we
are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its
jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Further the counsel for the petitioner has
brought to the notice of the Court about the
orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4204 of
2021 wherein in the identical circumstances
after reinstating of the petitioner as Chairman of
Maharajah Alak Narayan Society of Arts &
Science, (MANSAS) Trust, in identical
circumstances they have made certain
complaints with vague allegations, but this Court
interdicted such acts.
Considering the said circumstances and on
perusal of the entire file, there shall be stay of
all further proceedings in F.I.R.No.279 of 2021
of Nellimarla police station, Vizianagaram
District.
_______
DR, J
RD
