Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Janakula Sai Sandeep vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF 3396
FEBRUARY
APHC010138512021 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY
FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2386 OF 2021
Between:
1. JANAKULA SAI SANDEEP, S/o.Venkateswarlu aged 27 years Case balija
resident of Ummareddi gunta Nellore city Nellore District
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, by its public prosecutor having his office
at High Courts Building at Nelapadu
2. GANGISETTI SUPRAJA, W/o.suneelkumar aged 35 years Caste balija
Door.No.24-23,304 Near plot A Building NGO Colony B.V.Nagar Nellore
City Nellore District
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
High Court pleased to quash the proceeding in PRC No.28/2020 on the file of
the V Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate Nellore up on setting the aside the
congnizance order dated 10-03-2020 passed in Crl.MP No.302 of 2020 in
Crime No.44 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate
Nellore and pass
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may
be pleased pleased to grant stay of all the proceedings in PRC.No.28/2020 on
the of V Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate nellore and pass
This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of
Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri
SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public
2
Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent No. and of Sri_Advocate for
the Respondent No.
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
19731 has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.2 seeking to quash the
proceedings against him in P.R.C.No.28 of 2020, on the file of the Court of V
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, for the offences punishable
under Sections 307, 326, 309, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 2.
2. The facts mentioned in the complaint, in brief, are as follows:
a. Respondent No.2 has been residing in the house which was acquired by
her under a Will executed by her mother. As Accused No.1, with a view to grab
the property, had been threatening her, she obtained injunction in O.S.No.129 of
2009.
b. While so, on 12.02.2019 at about 3.45 p.m., Accused No.1 along with her
nephew i.e., Petitioner/Accused No.2 came to her house and poured kerosene on
her and abused her in filthy language and tried to set fire. Then she escaped
with the help of her friend Amala and one Rafi. After informing the same to her
husband, she lodged a complaint against the accused, which was registered as a
case in Crime No.44 of 2019 of Vedayapalem Police Station, Nellore. After
investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as P.R.C.28 of
2020.
1 for short 'Cr.P.C'
2 for short 'I.P.C.'
c. Under the influence of the father of Petitioner/Accused No.2, when the
Police filed chare sheet by deleting the Petitioner from the case, she filed a
protest petition. After perusal of the material on record, the learned Magistrate
took cognizance of the alleged offences against the Petitioner/ Accused No.2
also.
Grounds Sought for Quashment
3. Aggrieved by taking cognizance, Petitioner/Accused No.2 filed the present
petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him on the following
grounds:
i. The dispute is purely civil in nature and the same was intentionally
converted into a criminal case.
ii. The Court below ought not to have taken cognizance of the case against the
Petitioner, as no overt acts have been proved during the course of
investigation.
iii. The cause of the complainant fails because in the FIR and the statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C it is stated as 'petrol' but subsequently it was
converted into 'kerosene'.
iv. The learned Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind before taking
cognizance of the case.
Arguments Advanced at the Bar
4. Heard Sri N.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the Petitioner,
Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing
Respondent No.1/State and Sri V.Roopesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for
Respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that no prima facie offence
has been made out against the Petitioner. The learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the case against the Petitioner without there being any reasoned
order. He would further submit that there are no specific overt acts attributed
against the Petitioner. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the
Petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor, in one voice, would submit that prima facie case is made out against
the Petitioner. There are specific allegations against the Petitioner. The contents
of the charge sheet reveal prima facie case against the petitioner and as such,
this Court cannot conduct mini trial, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C., and prays for dismissal of the petition.
Point for Determination
7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both
the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:
Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the
proceedings in P.R.C.No.28 of 2020, on the file of the Court of V
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, for the
offences punishable under Sections 307, 3260B, 309, 506 and
509 I.P.C?
8. 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) 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.
9. In the present case, it is alleged by Respondent No.2 that, in view of the
disputes between her and Accused No.1 with regard to the house property,
Accused No.1 along with Accused No.2 on 12.02.2019 at about 3.45 p.m., came
to her house, tried to enter into the house forcibly and as the gates were locked,
they jumped upon the compound wall, trespassed into the house and Accused
No.1 threatened her that he would pour kerosene if she would not vacate the
house. It is further alleged that Petitioner/Accused No.2 poured kerosene around
the house and threatened that he will set fire to the house. P.Ws.2 and 3, who
were alleged to be present at the time of alleged incident, in their Section 161
Cr.P.C statements deposed on the same lines.
10. As the complaint and the statements of the witnesses before the Police
indicate the presence of the Petitioner/Accused No.2 at the time of the incident,
the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the Petitioner also for the alleged
offences.
11. The contentions raised by the Petitioner are factual aspects to be decided
during the course of trial. It is not open to the Court to stifle proceedings by
entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of the Petitioner/Accused
No.2 and the allegations made by Respondent No.2 are sufficient enough for the
trial to be taken up.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the judgments
referred to supra, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings cannot be
quashed at this stage since the ingredients of the offence alleged against the
Petitioner are prima facie made out. Hence, petition deserves dismissal.
13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Date:08.02.2024
Dinesh
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Dated: 08.02.2024
Dinesh
