Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Indukuri Balarama Krishnam Raju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 February, 2024

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.12094 OF 2018

ORDER:

Learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly seeking time.

Today i.e., on 05.02.2024 also learned counsel for the petitioner

sought adjournment, this Court declined to adjourn the matter

and inclined to dispose of the criminal petition.

2. The present criminal petition is filed to call for the records

pertaining to SC ST SC.No.23 of 2018, on the file of the learned

VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-SC ST cases

Trial Court, Eluru and to quash the same. Whereas, the police

laid the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections

342, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short

"I.P.C.") and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(v)(zc) and Section 3(2)(va) of SCs

and STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short "the Act") in

Crime No.77 of 2017 of Palakoderu Police Station.

3. As seen from the charge sheet it is evident that, on

25.04.2017, when the complainants were assisting to the

Panchayat authorities in revamping the Panchayat water pipe

line, the accused Nos.1 to 3 came to the spot, insulted them

causing humiliation and also abused them by touching their

caste name, as well as the accused persons also objected to

establish/erect Ambedkar Statue and imposed social boycott of

SC persons in the village by conducting a meeting.

4. Assailing the charge sheet the present criminal petition is

filed on the following grounds:

(a) Mere objection of erecting the statue does amounts

to an offence. Even as per the Gram Panchayat resolution, the

statue is supposed to be erected in somewhere. But the 2nd

respondent did not follow the resolution and with the help of the

some of the unsocial elements, they break open the Panchayat

office and brought out the statue and erected in front of the

Panchayat office, which is causing inconvenience and contrary to

the resolution of the Gram Panchayat.

(b) Even assuming that the petitioners directed the

villagers not to provide employment to the schedule caste people,

it does not amount to social boycott. Some of the witnesses say

that they were directed not to attend the job. Such allegation is

also not amounts to social boycott. Admittedly, the contents of

the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements do not disclose that they

were insulted within public. Hence, no offence is made out under

section 3 (1) (r) (s) or (zc) of the Act.

(c) The complaint does not disclose that there is a

wrongful restrain or criminal intimidation committed by the

accused.

5. On perusal of the material available on record, it is clear

that there are specific allegations against the petitioner/accused

and the grounds raised by the petitioner are not valid grounds to

quash the proceedings by exercising jurisdiction under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab1

held that the High Court can exercise powers to quash

proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of

process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice;

ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused

person must be tried under the provisions of Cr.P.C. and the

High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said

proceedings at an interlocutory stage. The Hon'ble Apex Court

also carved out some exceptions to the aforementioned rule,

which are as under:

"(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged.

AIR 1960 SC 866

Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category.

(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the first information report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not.

(iii) Where the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction under Section 561- A the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained."

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Arun

Gulab Gawali2 set aside the order passed by the High Court

quashing the criminal complaint/FIR which was even filed by the

complainant. In that case, prayer for quashing the FIR before the

High Court was filed by the complainant himself and the High

(2010) 9 SCC 701

Court quashed the FIR/complaint in exercise of the powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. With regard to quashing the FIR, the

Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 13 has observed as under:

"13. The power of quashing criminal proceedings has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and the Court cannot be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in the FIR/complaint, unless the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion. The extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. However, the Court, under its inherent powers, can neither intervene at an uncalled for stage nor can it "soft-pedal the course of justice" at a crucial stage of investigation/proceedings. The provisions of Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 sare a device to advance justice and not to frustrate it. The power of judicial review is discretionary, however, it must be exercised to prevent the miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave errors and to ensure that stream of administration of justice remains clean and pure. However, there are no limits of power of the Court, but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers.

8. The judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court have laid the

principles to quash the proceedings, while exercising the power

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The judgments and the principles

laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court is binding on this Court. As seen

from the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court it is clear that the

High Court should circumspect while exercising the power under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. As seen from the charge sheet, it is clear

that the petitioners/accused have abused the defacto-

complainant in the caste name. Whether the defacto-

complainant have break opened the Panchayat office and erected

a statue in the middle of the road or whether the defacto-

complainant have violated the Gram Panchayat resolution, these