Criminal Procedure vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 3132 AP

                                1




     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.7967 of 2013


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") is filed by the

petitioners/A.1 to A.4 seeking quash of proceedings in C.C.156

of 2013 pending on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Narsapur, West Godavari District.

2. Heard Sri K.Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. The 2nd

respondent filed written arguments.

3. A private complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent, and

having satisfied with the allegations made in the complaint and

having found prima facie case, the learned Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur had taken on file vide

C.C.No.156 of 2013 under Sections 324, 379 and 448 read with

109 IPC against the petitioners/A.1 to A.4.

4. On further perusal of the complaint, no prima facie case is

made out against the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 and reiterated the

earlier litigation between them and filed the complaint against

petitioners/A.1 to A.4 without disclosing any offence and

therefore, the same is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The

allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute any offence

against the petitioners/A.1 to A.4, of which the cognizance was

taken by the Magistrate. A perusal of the complaint does not

disclose any material evidence and it is not necessary that a

meticulous analysis of the case should be done. A reading of the

complaint and the allegations made therein do not constitute

any offence. Even the Magistrate did not apply the principles

laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka

Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.,1 that (a) a private complaint should

be supported by a proper affidavit and (b) before an application

under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is ordered, there should be a prior

application under Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. Both these

aspects should be spelt out in the application and necessary

documents should be filed. Due to non-application of mind, in a

routine manner, the complaint has been taken on file for the

offence under Sections 324, 379 and 448 read with 109 IPC

against the petitioners/A.1 to A.4. Questioning the same, the

petitioners/A.1 to A.4 filed the present petition to quash the

proceedings against them in C.C.No.156 of 2013 on the file of

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur, West

Godavari District.

2015 (3) ALT (Crl.) 26 (SC)

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/A.1 to A.4 submitted

that the 2nd respondent is habituated to create litigations and

filed false complaints one after the other. Further, he would

submit that, earlier the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint

against the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 and the same was registered

as a case in Crime No.62 of 2008 of Narsapur Town Police

Station and the same was quashed by this Court on 07.12.2011

in Criminal Petition No.4525 of 2008. He further submitted that

there were matrimonial disputes between the 3rd petitioner/A.3

and the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent filed a petition in

O.P.No.36 of 2005 against 3rd petitioner/A.3 to dissolve their

marriage dated 05.02.1999 and the same was dismissed by the

learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur. He would further submit

that in spite of quashing the criminal proceedings in Crime

No.62 of 2008 dated 07.12.2011, the 2nd respondent used to

lodge false complaints in S.R.Nos.7653 of 2008 and 7655 of

2008 and the trial Court dismissed the petitions filed by the 2 nd

respondent on the ground that the earlier complaint filed by the

2nd respondent came to be quashed. Therefore, he prays to allow

the criminal petition.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that

the act of the learned Magistrate, having satisfied and found

prima facie case, in taking cognizance under Sections 324, 379

and 448 read with 109 IPC against the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 is

perfectly in line.

7. The 2nd respondent/Party-in-Person filed written

arguments and submitted that there are no grounds to quash

the criminal petition, and the same is devoid of merits. He would

submit that there is no merit in the contention of the

petitioners/A.1 and A.4 that there are no allegations against

them with regard to the commission of the offence. The 2nd

respondent further contends that, after going through the

allegations made in the complaint and having satisfied, the

learned Magistrate had taken the case on file under Sections

448, 324 and 379 read with 109 IPC against the petitioners/A.1

to A.4 and numbered as C.C.156 of 2013. Therefore, he would

pray for the dismissal of the criminal petition.

8. As can be seen from the material on record, the allegations

in the complaint are totally vague and ambiguous. No details are

forthcoming and it is a clear case of abuse of process of law. The

allegations in the complaint do not even prima facie disclose any

offence against the petitioners/A.1 to A.4. The pleas taken in the

complaint are already taken before this Court in the earlier

Criminal Petition No.4525 of 2008.

9. In Neelu Chopra Vs. Bharti2 the facts of the case, as

observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, are that "the complaint

is sadly vague and it did not show as to which accused has

committed what offence and what is the exact role played by the

appellants in commission of the offence."

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court also time and again has examined

the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482

Cr.P.C., and laid down several principles which govern the

exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482

Cr.P.C. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy3, held that the

High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the

conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an

abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require

that the proceeding ought to be quashed.

11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao

Chandrojirao Angre4 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

"The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit

AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 2950

(1977) 2 SCC 699

(1988) 1 SCC 692

a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."

12. In Inder Mohan Goswami & Another Vs. State Of

Uttaranchal & Others5 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held

as follows:

"Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute."

13. In a decision reported in State of Haryana & Others Vs.

Ch.Bhajanlal and Others6 the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid

down the following guidelines as to when the High Court can

exercise its plenary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash

the proceedings. They are,

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not

2007 12 SCC 1 6 AIR 1992 SC 604

disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institu- tion and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

14. Therefore, in view of the guideline No.7 in Bhajanlal's case

(supra), the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with

mala fide and the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners/A.1 to

A.4 with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge

or to cause harm, where the allegations are absurd and

inherently improbable. In these circumstances, the proceedings

against the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 are not sustainable.

15. As can be seen from the facts of the case, earlier, the 2nd

respondent had lodged a complaint against the petitioners/A.1

to A.4 herein, in Crime No.62 of 2008 on 18.03.2008 on the file

of Narsapur Town Police Station, West Godavari District. The

petitioners herein and the petitioners in Criminal Petition

No.4525 of 2008, who are one and the same, approached the

Hon'ble High Court seeking to quash proceedings in Crime

No.62 of 2008 and said criminal petition was allowed by this

Court on 07.12.2011 and the proceedings against them were

quashed. Admittedly, there is an enmity between the 2nd

respondent and the petitioners/A.1 to A.4. Earlier, the

petitioner/A.3 filed a case in C.C.No.322 of 2003 on the file of

Additional Judicial Magistrate, Narsapur, under Section 498-A

IPC and the 2nd respondent was acquitted on 06.08.2007. The

2nd respondent filed O.P.60 of 2003 on the file of Family Court,

Visakhapatnam seeking divorce and subsequently, the said O.P

was transferred to the file of Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, and

renumbered as HMOP No.36 of 2005 and the same was

dismissed on 30.10.2007.

16. The another issue in this case arises out of a private

complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein before Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur. Without supporting

by an affidavit, the learned Magistrate passed the following

Order dated 30.04.2013.

"The case is taken on file against A.3 under Section 448,324, 379 IPC and against A.1, A.2 and A.4 under Section 109 IPC and registered as C.C.No.156 of 2013. Issue summons to A.1 to A.4."

17. This is the Order that is impugned in Criminal Petition.

The reading of the Order does not show that the learned

Magistrate applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of

the case without following the guidelines of Priyanka

Srivastava's case (supra). In view of the matter, this Court is of

the opinion that continuation of further proceedings against the

petitioners/A.1 to A.4 would amount to an abuse of process of

the Court.

18. In the light of the above background, the 2nd respondent

and the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 are making allegations against

each other and filing complaints, and this Court allowed the

Criminal Petition No.4525 of 2008 on 07.12.2011 and quashed

the FIR No.62 of 2008 dated 18.03.2008. In view of the above

circumstances, continuation of the present criminal proceedings

against the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 would amount to an abuse of

process of the Court.

19. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the

proceedings against the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 in C.C.No.156 of

2013 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narsapur, West Godavari District, are hereby quashed.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

shall stand disposed of.

JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

14.06.2023

DNS Mjl/*

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7967 OF 2013

14.06.2023 DNS Mjl/*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

**** CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7967 of 2013 Between:

1. Saripalli Rama Sattiah, S/o.Reddiyya, Advocate, Aged 57 years, Saripallivari Street, Narsapur, West Godavari District.

2. Mamellapalli Satya Surya Venkata Ramana, S/o.Somayajulu, Advocate, Aged 63 years, Ground Street, Narsapur, West Godavari District.

3. Vasa Lakshmi Surya Prabha, W/o.Jagannadha Sarma, Aged 39 years, D/o.Mamellapalli Satya Surya Venkata Ramana, Ground Street, Narsapur, West Godavari District.

4. Mamellapalli Venkata Ramana, S/o.Suryanarayana, Hindu, Male, Aged about 49 years, Lakshmi Nilayam, Beside Kerosinalu Pantulugaru House, Royapet, Narsapur, West Godavari District.

And

1. The State of A.P., Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati.

2. Vasa Jagannadha Sarma, S/o.Late Venkatagiri, Aged 41 years, C/o.Vasa Lakshmi Kameswari, Adikarivari Street, Narsapur, West Godavari District. ... Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 14-06-2023

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J

* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

+ CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7967 of 2013

% 14-06-2023

Between:

1. Saripalli Rama Sattiah, S/o.Reddiyya, Advocate, Aged 57 years, Saripallivari Street, Narsapur, West Godavari District.

2. Mamellapalli Satya Surya Venkata Ramana, S/o.Somayajulu, Advocate, Aged 63 years, Ground Street, Narsapur, West Godavari District.

3. Vasa Lakshmi Surya Prabha, W/o.Jagannadha Sarma, Aged 39 years, D/o.Mamellapalli Satya Surya Venkata Ramana, Ground Street, Narsapur, West Godavari District.

4. Mamellapalli Venkata Ramana, S/o.Suryanarayana, Hindu, Male, Aged about 49 years, Lakshmi Nilayam, Beside Kerosinalu Pantulugaru House, Royapet, Narsapur, West Godavari District.

And

1. The State of A.P., Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati.

3. Vasa Jagannadha Sarma, S/o.Late Venkatagiri, Aged 41 years, C/o.Vasa Lakshmi Kameswari, Adikarivari Street, Narsapur, West Godavari District.

                                                  ... Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioner               : Sri K.Gopal

^ Counsel for Respondents              : Asst.Public Prosecutor (State)
                                        Sri M.Ramarao (R.2)
< Gist:

> Head Note:





? Cases referred:

1.   2015 (3) ALT (Crl.) 26 (SC)

2.   AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 2950

3.   (1977) 2 SCC 699

4.   (1988) 1 SCC 692

5.   2007 12 SCC 1

6.   AIR 1992 SC 604

This Court made the following: