Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G Prabhakar vs State Of Ap on 2 April, 2024
APHC010011512020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 179/2020
Between:
G Prabhakar ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
State Of AP & Another ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. SODUM ANVESHA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19731 has been filed, by the petitioner/Accused No.2, seeking
quashment of the proceedings against him in Cr.No.251 of 2019 of
Anantapuramu Rural Police Station, registered under Sections 323 and 420
1 in short 'Cr.P.C.'
read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19893.
2. Contents of the complaint in brief:
a. Complainant/Respondent No.2 entered into a lease agreement on
22.12.2018 for incorporation of petrol bunk for 20 years with Pavan
Developers Managing Directors S.V.Prasad Reddy and G.Prabhakar/
petitioner herein. They have given Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant and got
permission for running petrol bunk from Indian Oil Corporation officials. After
getting permission, he came to know that the said lease holders have sold
the subject land to some others. Immediately, he addressed a letter to the
lease holders, but did not get any reply from them.
b. On 21.12.2019 at 8.30 P.M., when he went to the house of the
petitioner and questioned about their acts, they refused to give the amount
and in that respect, an argument has taken place between them and the
petitioner along with one A.Naresh who was present there, pushed him out
and beat him with hands and legs and abused him by touching his caste.
c. Basing on the said complaint, a case has been registered in
Cr.No.251 of 2019 of Ananthapuramu Rural Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections 323, 420 read with 34 of I.P.C and Section 3 (1)
(r) (s) of the Act.
2 In short 'I.P.C.'
In short 'the Act'
3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking
quashment of the case against him on the following grounds:
a. The nature of the dispute as per the complaint is purely civil in nature
converted into criminal case, taking advantage of his caste to have an
unlawful gain with malafide intention.
b. The said allegation does not disclose any offence particularly with an
intention to humiliate him within the public view, therefore continuation of
proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
c. The defacto complainant does not state that he was accompanied by
his friends or acquaintances or that there were other people present in the
alleged scene of offence and further it is only to coerce the petitioner by
implicating the provisions under SC/ST (PoA) Act.
d. The respondent police mechanically referred to the Sections lodged
without there being any material in the complaint. Respondent No.1 should
have conducted the preliminary enquiry by registering the crime, particularly
when the complaint is filed after three days after the incident.
e. The complainant was allegedly given approval of dealership of Indian
Oil Corporation, but no such documents or proceedings were placed on
record.
Arguments advanced at the Bar
4. Heard Ms. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.
D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the
State/Respondent No.1. Despite notice is served on Respondent No.2,
none appeared for Respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that mere breach of
contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating to attract the
offence under Section 420 IPC and that the fraudulent or dishonest intention
should be there from the inception. It is also submitted that in the present
case, civil dispute was given the colour of criminal case. Though in the
complaint, it is stated that the Complainant has approached the elders due
to which the delay occurred, the names of those elders are not mentioned.
Coming to the offence under Section 323 IPC, the complaint is bereft of any
details about the part of the body where the Complainant suffered injury.
6. Learned counsel further submits that it is alleged that the Complainant
entered a lease agreement dated 22.12.2018 with Accused No.1 relating to
the land for 20 years to set up a petrol bunk. When the lease was in
existence, they have sold the property to third parties. It is alleged that the
Complainant went to the house of Petitioner/Accused No.2 on 21.12.2019
and there was a verbal dispute between them and it is also alleged that in
that altercation the Accused abused him touching his caste. To attract the
offence under Section 3(1) (r) (s) of the Act, public view is necessary. As
the incident did not occur within the public view, the offence under Section
3(1) (r) (s) of the Act does not attract to the facts of the present case.
Learned counsel, in support of their contention, has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Kumar Ghai & Others v. The
State of West Bengal & Others4.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are
specific allegations against the Petitioner and the truth will come out during
investigation only. In view of the existence of stay, no investigation has been
done. The proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed to
dismiss the petition.
Point for Determination
8. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel
representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record,
the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows:
Whether the case against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in Cr.
No.251 of 2019 of Anantapuramu Rural P.S., is liable to be
quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.?
Determination by the Court
9. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages
that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to
make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the
Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii)
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305
to secure ends of justice. 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.
10. It is alleged in the complaint that Accused No.1 entered into a lease
agreement with Respondent No.2 for the lease of land of an extent of
Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.605-3D of Gudloor Village, Penugonda Mandal,
Anantapuramu District for a period of 20 years, and having taken advance
amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, sold the same to third parties. When Respondent
No.2 went to question the same, Petitioner/Accused No.2 and Accused No.3
beat him with hands and kicked him with legs, abused him in the name of his
caste and refused to give money or the land. Presence of dishonest
intention from the inception is the point to be decided during investigation.
This Court cannot conduct a mini trial to elicit the intention of the accused in
selling the property when the lease was in existence, that too the lease was
taken on 22.12.2018 and within no time the property was sold to third
parties.
11. It is also alleged that, when Respondent No.2 went to the house of the
Accused, and they have abused. Whether Respondent No.2 was abused in
the name of his caste by Accused Nos.2 and 3 within public view or not, has
to be decided during investigation. Further, perusal of record shows that,
stay was granted in this case by stalling further proceedings in this matter.
Therefore, no investigation has been done to elicit the truth or otherwise of
the said allegations. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are
specific allegations against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 and as such, the
proceedings against him cannot be quashed at this stage by exercising the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the petition deserves dismissal.
12. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Date:02.04.2024
PND
Dinesh
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Dt.02.04.2024
PND
Dinesh
