Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yallamili Durga Maheswari Chelluboyna ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 June, 2024
1
APHC010600452016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 46619 OF 2016
Between:
Yallamili Durga Maheswari @ Chelluboyna Durga and ...PETITIONER(S)
Others
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. TURAGA SAI SURYA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
following relief:-
"to issue an order direction to call for the records relating to FIR No.150 of
2016 on the file of the Station House Officer, Malikapuram Police Station, E.G.District
and quash the same in so far as the petitioners/A2 and A3 by issuing a writ of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the same is illegal and
abuse of process of law and pass such other order or orders......."
2. The precise case of the petitioners is that the 4th respondent filed a
case in Crime No.150 of 2016 of 3rd respondent alleging that she got
acquainted with one Chelluboyana Srinu and the same was turned into a love
affair, under the guise of marriage sexually enjoyed her. It is further alleged
that she used to bring the question of marriage for which Mr. Srinu tried to skip
to answer and on 18.11.2016 at about 9 p.m Mr. Srinu came to her house and
forcefully committed sexual intercourse and in the mean time after long
absence of her presence at her place, the parents visited the house of Srinu
and observing which said Srinu fled from the house and aggrieved by the
incident the same was placed before the elders for which they have agreed
and later they went back against the promise.
3. While the matter stood thus, a false case foisted against the
petitioners and a plain reading of the affair does not attract any offence
against the petitioners and the same is invented to settle the scores. The
allegation in the FIR does not disclose any offence committed by the
petitioners and it is nothing but abuse of process of law. The petitioners have
never abused her by touching the caste name and the said incident is
occurred within the public view. Therefore, this Writ Petition is filed to quash
the FIR.
4. Heard Mr. T. Sai Surya, learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Assistant Government Pleader, Home for the respondents/ police.
5. Per contra, the respondents 1 to 3 filed counter-affidavit and mainly
contended that basing on the complaint of the 4th respondent, the 3rd
respondent registered a case in Crime No.150 of 2016 and took up
investigation by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Amalapuram. During the
course of investigation, the section of law was altered from 417, 376 read with
34 IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(ii) of SCs/ STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 to
Section 417, 376 read with 34 IPC, Section 5(1) read width 6 of POCSO Act,
2012 and Section 3(2)(v) of SCs and STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. The
invesdtion officer has also examined witnesses and recorded their statements
and further investigation is under progress. It is a fact that the matter was
brought to the petitioners and they promised to conduct marriage of the
Accused-1 with the 4th respondent herein, but they went back from their
promises. Therefore, the 4th respondent requested the 3rd respondent to take
appropriate action against the Accused-1 and the petitioner herein. After
completion of investigation a detailed report under applicable section of law
will be filed in respect of the accused and the petitioners herein. Therefore, the
present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage and same is liable to be
dismissed.
6. Perused the record.
7. As could be seen from the record, it is evident that a case in Crime
No.150 of 2016 has registered by the 3rd respondent basing on the complaint
of the 4rd respondent against the petitioners and subsequently section of law
has been altered during investigation. Since this Court granted interim
direction on 02.01.2017, the respondents/ police has not proceeded with
investigation.
8. In "Sri Gulam Mustafa v. The State of Karnataka and Another 1",
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
26. Although we are not for verbosity in our judgments, a slightly detailed
survey of the judicial precedents is in order. In State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, this Court held:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the
following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could
be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines
or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(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 FIR do not 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.
...
Criminal Appeal No.1452 of 2023 (SC), dated 10.05.2023
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."
.....
29. In Uma Shankar Gopalika v State of Bihar, (2005) 10 SCC 336, at Para 7
thereof, it was held that when the complaint fails to disclose any criminal
offence, the proceeding is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the
Code:
"In our view petition of complaint does not disclose any criminal
offence at all much less any offence either under Section 420 or Section
120-B IPC and the present case is a case of purely civil dispute between the
parties for which remedy lies before a civil court by filing a properly
constituted suit. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police
investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court
and to prevent the same it was just and expedient for the High Court to quash
the same by exercising the powers under Section 482 Code which it has
erroneously refused." (emphasis supplied)
.....
31. In Vinod Natesan v State of Kerala, (2019) 2 SCC 401, this Court took the
position outlined hereunder:
"11. ... Even otherwise, as observed hereinabove, we are more than
satisfied that there was no criminality on part of the accused and a civil
dispute is tried to be converted into a criminal dispute. Thus to continue the
criminal proceedings against the accused would be an abuse of the process
of law. Therefore, the High Court has rightly exercised the powers
under Section 482 CrPC and has rightly quashed the criminal proceedings. In
view of the aforesaid and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal
fails and deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed." (emphasis
supplied)
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that there was
no insult or intimidation with an intent to humiliate in a place within public view
and there is no allegation that the petitioners in the FIR and without having the
ingredient of intentional insult the petitioners should not be prosecuted under
the provisions of the SC and ST (POA) Act, 2015 and more over, there is no
whisper in the complaint that the petitioners have insulted him with her caste
for humiliating her and without alleging the same, the petitioners cannot be
prosecuted for the alleged offence. Therefore, requested to quash the FIR.
10. As could be seen from the FIR, it is apparent that no alteration of
law is made as claimed by the respondents in their counter-affidavit and the
FIR is registered on 20.11.2016 as per endorsement of the 3rd respondent.
Therefore, this Court finds that there are no specific allegations against the
petitioners herein as per FIR. The respondents/ police also did not shown
cogent reasons, how the FIR is altered, except making simple statement in the
counter-affidavit. On these counts alone, the impugned FIR is liable to be
quashed.
11. Upon perusal of the material available on record, it is made clear
that there are no allegations against the petitioners herein in the FIR to attract
the ingredients of Section 3(1)(w)(ii) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
Further the respondents have failed to explain the exact reasons, how the
petitioners are liable to be prosecuted as per aforesaid section of law. Under
these circumstances and following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
cited supra, this Court clarify that in no manner, are to dilute the applicability of
special statutes, but only to remain the police not to mechanically apply the
law, dehors reference to the factual position. If the allegations are to be true
on their face value, it is not discernible that any offence can be said to have
been made out under the SC/ST Act against the petitioners. It appears that
there the respondents/ police committed abuse of process of law in the matter.
Further, this Court observed that there is no direct evidence or statements
against the petitioners with regard to alleged allegations make out in the
complaint by the 4th respondent. Under the aforementioned circumstances,
the petitioners are entitled to claim the relief as prayed for.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, while quashing the FIR
No.150 of 2016 on the file of the 3rd respondent for the petitioners herein are
concerned. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
______________________________
DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
KK
