Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Landa Shivaji vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 April, 2025
1
APHC010165992021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3333]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2657/2021
Between:
Landa Shivaji and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Pradesh and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. P L NARASIMHA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2657/2021
The Court made the following Order:
The present Criminal petition is filed challenging the
proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.2709 of
2020 pending on the file of 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Vishakapatnam in Cr.No.18 of 2020 on the file of
Kancharapalem Police Station for the offence punishable under
section 341, 342, 354(D), 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC.
02. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 and
the 2nd respondent herein is the de-facto complainant.
03. It is alleged that the de-facto complainant is residing at her
parents’ house in Kailasapuram. Her marriage took place about
ten years ago and unable to bear the harassment made by her
husband, she took divorce from her husband in the year 2015.
During her deserted life, one Landa Rajasekhar showed
compassion and love towards her and took her responsibility as
well as her daughter. She started live-in-relationship with the said
Rajasekhar who made her believe that he loved her and
promised to marry her after convincing his family members. When
the complainant came to know about the marriage proposal of
3
Landa Rajasekhar with another woman, she asked about her
marriage and then he replied that he would secretly maintain his
relationship with her. Then she informed to his parents as well as
to the women with whom the marriage of Rajasekhar is going to
be performed and then his marriage proposal was cancelled.
Further, he did not agree to marry the complainant. On
15.04.2019, the said Rajasekhar and his family members invited
the complainant to their house for a discussion about the issue
and at about 8.00 a.m., she went to their house, at that time the
said Rajaskehar and his parents Krishnamurthy, Neelima along
with one Shivaji who is the brother of Rajasekhar and one Ajay
who is the brother-in-law of Rajasekhar are forced to withdraw
her marriage proposal and forced to sign on empty white papers.
Then, she lodged a complaint to the police which was registered
in Crime No.18 of 2019 on the file of Muvvalavanialem Police
Station, Viskahapatnam City for the offence punishable under
Section 376, 417, 420, 506 IPC and then said Rajasekhar was
arrested and send to Judicial Remand. From the date of release
on bail, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were sending whatsapp
messages from various numbers and used to harass her and
threatened her to withdraw the case. Meanwhile, the petitioners
4
are used to stalk the complainant with intent to outrage her
modesty and threatened her with dire consequences. Basing on
the report given by the complainant, a case in Cr.No.189 of 2019
was registered for the offence punishable under Section 341,
342, 354(D), 509 and 506 r/w 34 IPC on the file of
Kancharapalem Police Station. After completion of investigation,
the police lodged charge-sheet which was numbered as
C.C.No.2709 of 2020. Challenging the same, the present criminal
petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences with which they
are charged and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in
the alleged crime with false, bald, vague and omnibus allegations
and no specific allegations administrated against the petitioners
and the averments in the police report and charge-sheet are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. The initiation of
the proceedings against the petitioners are nothing but an abuse
5
of process of Court and accordingly, in order to wreck vengeance
against the petitioners with a view to spite them due to private
and personal grudge. He further submits that the brother of the 1 st
petitioner namely Landa Rajasekhar was infact in live-in-
relationship with the de-facto complainant since four years and
when he rejected to marry her, the 2nd respondent herein made a
complaint against the family members of the Landa Rajasekhar
including the petitioners herein. Infact, the complainant lodged a
complaint against one Landa Rajasekhar, which was registered
as Crime No.189 of 2019 for the offence punishable under
Section 376, 417, 420, 506 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the Land
Rajasekhar filed Criminal Petition No.3842 of 2020 seeking to
quash all proceedings and accordingly sought for quashing of
present proceedings.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,
while reiterating the contents of the charge-sheet, submits that
there are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners and
the alleged offences are serious and grievous in nature, the truth
or otherwise of which will be determined by the competent
criminal court in a full-fledged trial and this court, in exercise of
jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C, cannot determine the
6
truthfulness of the allegations. Since the contention of the
petitioners is bereft of any specific material, there are no valid
grounds to quash the proceedings and he prays to dismissal of
the criminal petition.
6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned
counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material
available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as
follows:
“Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.2709 of 2020 on the
file of learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Vishakapatnam, is liable to be quashed against the
petitioner by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C.?”
7. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C.
Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the
High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give
effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It
is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make
an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If
an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it
7
would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for
the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse
that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have
power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the
administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which
alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent
injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but
merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court.
Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases
and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice.
8. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long
line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows:
In “R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab1“, the Apex Court laid
down the following principles:
(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings
against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of
the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings
would secure the ends of justice;
1
AIR 1960 SC 866
8
(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against
the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want
of sanction;
(iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the
complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and
(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but
there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced
clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers
the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of
the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint
exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called
for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any
offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations
set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which
cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court
to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under
Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a
meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out
whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint
has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the
9
allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the
complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are
disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is
mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no
justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex
Court in “Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar2“
9. In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 3 ” the Apex Court
considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482
and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or
FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying
down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in
exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint:
(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.
(3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and
the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case against the
accused.
2
AIR 1990 SC 494
3
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
10
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of
the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the
Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(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.
10. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to
examine the case on hand.
11. It is the contention of the petitioners that the complainant
went to the house of A.1 i.e., on 15.04.2019 for discussing
regarding her marriage with A.1. A.1 and the petitioners have
forced the respondent No.2 to sign on empty white papers in
order to withdraw the case against A.1 in Cr.No.189 of 2019 on
the file of Muvvalavanipalem Police Station.
12. A thorough reading of the contents of the charge-sheet and
the material on record would show that except making bald and
baseless allegations against the petitioners, no details are given
11
as to on what date, on which day and at what time they have
harassed the complainant. Except the allegation that the
petitioners have refused to perform the marriage of the de-facto
complainant with A.1 and have forced to sign on white paper in
order to withdraw the case against A.1, there is no specific
allegation which attracts Section 341, 342, 354(D), 506, 509 r/w
34 IPC. Even in the 161 Cr.P.C statements also the complainant
did not disclose about the particulars as to when and where they
used to harass the complainant. In the absence of substantive
material, the accusation leveled against the petitioners would
amount to abuse of process of Court, and hence, this Court is of
the view that, it is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings initiated
against the petitioners.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 in
C.C.No.2709 of 2020 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, are hereby quashed.
12
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any,
shall stand closed.
___________________
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
Date: 17.02.2025
KKV
13
258
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2657/2021
Date: 17.02.2025
KKV
[ad_1]
Source link