Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Dhanga Bhooloka vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 June, 2024

APHC010268772020

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI               [3396]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

              FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE
                 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
                         PRESENT
  THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
            CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4287 AND 4228 of 2020
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4287 OF 2020

Between:
   DHANGA BHOOLOKA, DHANGA.BHOOLOKA,S/ODANAYYA,            AGED
   ABOUT YEARS,R/O.KONADA VILLAGE, PUSAPATIREGA MANDAL,
   VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.
                                          ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
                              AND
   1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THE STATE OF A.P., THROUGH
      S.H.O., PUSAPATIREGA RURAL POLICE STATION, KONADA
      VILLAGE,   VIZIANAGARAM   DISTRICT,     REP.   BY   PUBLIC
      PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI.
   2. KOSARI SURIBABU, S/O.KRISHNA,    AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
      R/O.KONADA VILLAGE, PUSAPATIREGA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM
      DISTRICT.
                                ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4228 OF 2020

Between:
   1. KAMBAPU APPALAREDDI, S/O.RAMASURAPPLAREDDI,          AGED
      ABOUT YEARS,R/O.KONADA VILLAGE, PUSAPATIREGA MANDAL,
      VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.
   2. BASAVA UPENDRA, S/O. B.ACHIBABU,          AGED ABOUT 25
      YEARS,R/O.KONADA     VILLAGE,    PUSAPATIREGA      MANDAL,
      VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT
                                        ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
                               AND
   1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THE STATE OF A.P., THROUGH
      S.H.O., PUSAPATIREGA RURAL POLICE STATION, KONADA
      VILLAGE,   VIZIANAGARAM    DISTRICT,    REP.   BY   PUBLIC
      PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI.
   2. KOSARI SURIBABU, S/OKRISHNA,      AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
      R/O.KONADA VILLAGE, PUSAPATIREGA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM
      DISTRICT.
                                 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
                                       2


Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

     1. T VENU GOPAL

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

     1. T V SRI DEVI

     2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:

The instant petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 19731 have been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2

& 3 respectively, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime

No.204 of 2020 on the file of Pusapatirega Police Station, Vizianagaram

District, which was registered for the offence punishable under Section

506 of Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3(2)(va) of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

19893.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:

a) On 22.09.2020 at about 7.30 p.m., while Respondent No.2, who

belongs to SC Community, along with one Korna Chandarrao were

returning home from the fish market, Petitioner/Accused No.1 called

them. As such, Respondent No.2 along with said Chandarrao went into

for short 'Cr.P.C'

for short 'IPC'

for short 'SCST Act'

the iron shed of Accused No.1, where, Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3

were also present.

b) Petitioner/Accused No.1 abused Respondent No.2 saying as "Orey,

gathamlo mee nayakulu Dadisetty Govinda and others SC Colony ki

sambamdhinchina bhoomulu neni kabja chesanu ani complaint icharu.

Anduku gala kaaranam mee maala naakodukulu ani telusu. Andulo

nuvvu urakane konthamandi maala naakodukulani vesukuni maa

bhoomulu maaku ippinchandi ani mee nayakula daggariki velli

aduguthunnaru ane vishayam naaku telisindi. Orey, maala lanjakodakaa,

mee kulam andariki leni duula neekendukura, inkokasari nuvvu ee okka

nayakudi daggaraku vellinaa, car tho guddi adharaalu lekunda champesta

maala lanjakodakaa."

c) Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, caught hold the neck of

Respondent No.2, put him on the compound wall and abused him as

"maala lanja kodakallaraa, mee andariki athani illu maatrame

kanapaduthunnadaa, meeku kompalu unnayi kadaraa, lanja

kodakallaaraa, inkokasaari maa bhoomulu ani akkadiki ikkadiki velthe,

adhaaraalu lekunda champestam. Maala naakodukulu maala

naakodukulugaa undandi. Anthe gaani annintilo chethulu pedithe, kaallu,

chethulu, virichi intlo kurchopedatham." They also threatened

Respondent No.2 and Chandarrao to kill, if they disclose the matter to

anybody.

d) As such, Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against Accused

Nos.1 to 3, which was registered as a case in Crime No. 204 of 2020 of

Pusapatirega Police Station, Vizianagaram District for the alleged

offences.

Grounds for quashment:

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said case,

Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 filed the present petition on the following

grounds:

(i) Accused No.1 and his wife were elected as President of Konada

Village and due to political revenge, with the support of opposition party,

Accused No.1 is falsely implicated in the present case.

(ii) Petitioner/Accused No.1 constructed a house in D-Form Patta land

given by the Government in the name of his wife and Respondent No.2

with the support of ruling political party leaders pressurized the Revenue

Officials and got issued notices to the Petitioner/Accused No.1 to vacate

the premises. As such, Petitioner/Accused No.1 filed W.P.No.3524 of

2020, wherein this Court directed the Revenue Department not to evict

the Petitioner from his house and land.

(iii) As the wife of Petitioner/Accused No.2 has not withdrawn her

nomination for MPTC Member, as per the demand of the ruling party

leaders, a false report has been given against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1

to 3.

(iv) The ingredients of Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3(2) (va) of SCST Act

do not attract to the instant case as there is no public view.

(v) So far as the allegations for the offence under Section 506 IPC are

concerned, the Petitioners have never threatened Respondent No.2.

(vi) Respondent No.2 with a mala fide intention and taking advantage

of his caste, foisted the present false case against the Petitioners with

false and concocted allegations and as such, continuation of proceedings

against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri T.Venu Gopal, learned counsel for the Petitioners,

Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

State/Respondent No.1 and Ms.T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for

Respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 would

submit that a false case has been lodged against the Petitioners. It is

submitted that, though this Court passed an interim order on 07.10.2020

ordering stay of all further proceedings in this matter, charge sheet has

been filed. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged incident has

never happened within public view. It is submitted that there is a land

dispute between Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 and with regard to

the same, Petitioner/Accused No.1 filed W.P.No.3524 of 2020 before this

Court and obtained a favourable order. It is further submitted that, in the

said writ petition, the proposed action of Respondents therein in issuing

notices under Section 7 of A.P.Land Encroachment Act, was declared as

illegal and arbitrary and this Court also directed the Respondents therein

not to dispossess the Petitioners from their respective lands, except by

due process of law. Learned counsel finally submits that, after two

months of the order in said writ petition, the present case has been

lodged. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is

an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings

against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that

there are specific allegations against the Petitioners, which attract the

alleged offences against them. There are no tenable grounds to quash

the proceedings against the Petitioners at this stage. Hence, prayed for

dismissal of the petition.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit

that they have not received the copy of the order of stay, from the Court

by the date of filing of charge sheet. No contra material has been placed

on record disputing the representation of the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor.

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 there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.204 of 2020 on the file of Pusapatirega Police Station, Vizianagaram District?

Determination by the Court:

9. A 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. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the

provision must be present.

10. A bare perusal of the present complaint would reveal that

Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, in view of the previous disputes, abused

Respondent No.2 in the name of his caste and also threatened him with

dire consequences. The contention of the learned counsel for the

Petitioners that the alleged incident had not taken place within public

view, cannot be appreciated at this stage, for the reason that the contents

of the complaint are shown otherwise. A keen perusal of the complaint

and the material placed on record would disclose that specific abusive

words were alleged to have been used by the Petitioners against

Respondent No.2 touching his caste by threatening him with dire

consequences.

11. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to judgment in Neeharika

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others4, wherein,

a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the following

principles of law:-

"57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge:

i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences;

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the „rarest of rare cases‟. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

4 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P.Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."

(emphasis supplied)

12. In view of the above discussion and the judgment referred to supra,

this Court is of the view that the contentions raised by the learned counsel

for the Petitioners are the aspects to be decided during trial. As there are

specific allegations leveled against the Petitioners, this is not a proper

stage to consider the genuineness of the said allegations. A petition filed

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot be decided based on presumptions

and assumptions. This Court cannot rely on the merits of the case at this

stage as while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the

Cr.P.C., this Court cannot conduct a mini trial and hence, the petitions

deserve dismissal.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed.