Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Murala. Gopinadh, vs The State, Station House Officer, on 28 February, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
W.P. No.19852 of 2018
Murala Gopinadh,
S/o M.Rama Mohana Rao,
Nizvid, Krishna District.
.. Petitioner
Versus
The Station House Officer,
prakashnagar P.S.,
Rajahmundry,
East Godavari District.
..Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : Party in person
Counsel for the respondents : Government Pleader for Home
ORDER
Date: 28.02.2023
(per D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J)
This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
'..to exercise power Under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India (1) to grant writ of Prohibition, Certiorari, prohibiting the
Magistrate to operate further in C.C.No.133 of 2010 on the
record of Hon'ble II Judicial First Class Magistrate at
Rajahmundry call for the complete records to quash all
proceedings after 22.11.2011 and send to Hon'ble Addl.
Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nuzvid along with originals
in CrI.P.No.8158 of 2011 directing expeditious trail within 6
months ..'
2. This Court has heard the party in person, who attempted
valiantly to justify his stand and the learned Government Pleader
for Home.
3. A reading of the affidavit shows that the petitioner is
dissatisfied with the sequence of events that occurred in the Court
of II Judicial First Class Magistrate at Rajahmundry in C.C.No.133
of 2010. He was also dissatisfied with the manner in which he
was arrested. The fact remains that he is a party to a matrimonial
dispute filed against him by the 2nd respondent. Particular stress
was laid upon the procedure in C.C.No.133 of 2010 in which the
petitioner is accused No.1. He is dissatisfied with the manner in
which a non-bailable warrant has been issued and has also filed a
perjury application which is returned a number of times. An
application for certified copies were also supposedly returned. He
also states that there is tampering of a docket order. Basing on
these allegations, the party in person prays for this Courts
interference. He also blames a number of persons, who appeared
and calls them gundas in Court, who prevented him from
appearing in the Rajahmundry and the Nuzvid Courts. Therefore,
he prays for a writ of prohibition and certiorari. He also produced
some of the case law on the subject. The ultimate prayer is for a
writ of prohibition and certiorari stating that to call for the records
with reference to the proceeding in C.C.No.133 of 2010 on the file
of the II Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, quashing
of proceedings and to send the same to the Hon'ble Additional
Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nizvid for trial.
4. As rightly pointed out by the respondents, the prayer is not
clear and is vague. It is in the nature of a quash petition, wherein
the petitioner seeks to stay quashing of all further proceedings
'after 22.11.2011' and also to send the matter to the Court of
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nuzvid. Thus, both a quashing
and transfer are sought in one writ. Therefore, the application is
strongly opposed by the counsel for the respondents.
5. This Court notices that the proceedings in C.C.No.133 were
initiated in the year 2010. This is evident from the paras 8 and 9
of the writ affidavit and the very number allotted to the case. The
petitioner wants this Court to quash the proceedings in this case
'after 22.11.2011 and to send the same to the Court of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizvid'.
6. A perusal of the daily status report of this case C.C.No.133
of 2010 shows that the petitioner Sri M.Gopinadh, is represented
by advocate Sri D.Apparao. A.1 and A.3 were present in the Court
on 11.12.2011 also. In the recent past and after the present writ
was filed in 2018, on 28.12.2022, Accused No.1 and 3 were
absent. An absent petition was filed and it was allowed and the
matter was listed to 23.01.2023. It is clear that the petitioner has
been appearing through a counsel and contesting the matter.
7. In addition, the prayers sought are extremely vague.
Normally, a certiorari is issued to set aside the proceeding
resulting from a serious flaw in the inferior Court's proceedings. It
is a corrective remedy which has ended in a final order.
'Quashing' the criminal proceeding is also an exception rather
than the rule. It is to be sparingly exercised. None of the grounds
urged by the petitioner meet the standards laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for quashing the proceeding. The
net effect of the prayer sought for by the party in person is to
quash the proceedings. However, the affidavit or the submissions
of the party in person do not lead to a conclusion that this is a fit
case to quash all further proceedings. The law on the subject of
'quashing' a complaint are very well settled. The leading judgment
of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others1 still
holds the field. The submission of the petitioner and his
grievances do not attract the conclusions in para 102 and 103 of
this leading judgment or the other judgments. The prayer in a
way is not for quashing the entire proceedings, but only certain
proceedings after 22.11.2011 and to transfer the case to another
Court. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner is still participating in
the proceedings. The law is reiterated in Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra2. It is again
held that power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and
with circumspection.
8. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner can ventilate his
grievances about the alleged procedural and other deficiencies in
the course of his trial and before the jurisdictional Magistrate
AIR 1992 SC 604
2021 SCC Online SC 315
only. No ground is made out either to quash the proceedings in
part or in full. In the opinion of this Court, the writ petition is
totally misconceived. The conduct of the petitioner estops from
seeking these reliefs. In the overall scheme of things, it appears to
be a writ petition filed to delay the proceedings in the
jurisdictional Magistrate Court.
9. For all the above mentioned rules, this Court is of the
opinion that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same
is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU,J
KLP
