Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
A.Suryanarayana vs State Of Ap on 2 December, 2024
1
APHC010147772019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3059/2019
Between:
A.Suryanarayana and 2 others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
State of A.P and another ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. ALAPATI ROHINI SRINIVAS MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. V V LAKSHMI NARAYANA
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
2
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for
short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.175 of 2019 of
Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur registered against the
petitioners/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 468, 471,
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, Sri Krishnasramam
Harijana Industrial School, Guntur was providing lodging and boarding to the
Harijana students and giving handi craft training like Carpentry, Metal casting,
Cement etc., to them on free of cost in order to make self employment to
them. The Endowment Department has notified the said trust as public trust
and appointed an E.O. When the represented GPA on behalf of 3rd trustee
misappropriated the trust property, the Endowment Department approached
the Court of law and the Court ordered to maintain status-quo. In the
circumstances, the petitioner/A1 informed the Court by producing forgery
documents as if he is acting as 1st Trustee and A2 was acting as Managing
Trustee, though M.V.S.Shekar is acting as 1st trustee, and withdrew the cash
of the said trust from banks and also appointed accused No.3 as trustee by
creating forgery documents. Further, A1 to A3 colluded together with dishonest
intention and damaged the construction and sold away the furniture, scrap,
Iron etc. and committed theft of files pertaining to 20 years, thereby, the
petitioners committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 468, 471,
3
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Mr.V.V.Lakshminarayana,
learned counsel for respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that accused Nos.1 to 3
are nothing to do with the alleged crime and they are falsely implicated by the
de facto complainant in the present case, with a view to knock away the trust
property for having an unlawful gain. He further submits that the petitioners
are the trustees of Sri Krishnasramam Harijan Industrial School located near
Kankaragunta Gate, Guntur and have been managing and looking after the
said trust by serving the poor, down trodden of suppressed people of
scheduled castes by providing training to develop their skills and to promote
their lives. The 2nd respondent herein and one Kota Lakshmidhar Naidu have
never nothing to do with the said trust and they never acted as trustees as
alleged in the FIR.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted
that accused Nos.1 to 3 have colluded together with dishonest intention and
misappropriated the funds of the trust. He further submitted that since huge
property is involved, truth or otherwise of the allegations leveled against
accused Nos.1 to 3 can be proved only after full fledged trial. Hence, the
proceedings against accused Nos.1 to 3 cannot be quashed at this stage and
he prays to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is at
initial stage, hence, the proceedings against the accused cannot be quashed.
4
7. 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 F.I.R.No.175 of 2019 of Pattabhipuram
Police Station, Guntur, is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?”
8. 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 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.
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:
5
In “R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab 1 “, 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;
(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 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“
1
AIR 1960 SC 866
2
AIR 1990 SC 494
6In “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.
(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.
9. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that, serious
allegations are made against the accused Nos.1 to 3 in the complaint, wherein
they are alleged to have created forged documents and misappropriated the
trust property. Whether the petitioners/accused have created forged
documents or not and whether they have misappropriated the trust funds or
3
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
7
not are all disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into at this stage.
Truth or otherwise of the said allegations can be decided only after full fledged
trial and this Court in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be gone
into and decide the same.
10. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court that basing on the
complaint made by the Endowments Department to the SHO, another crime
was also registered against the petitioners/accused, which is also pending for
investigation.
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, that accused
Nos.1 and 2 produced forged documents showing that they are acting as 1 st
trustee and Managing trustee respectively and withdrew cash of the said trust
from banks and appointed accused No.3 as trustee by creating forged
documents and further all the accused colluded together with dishonest
intension and damaged the trust properties and since the serious allegations
are made against the petitioners/accused and huge property is involved and
the investigation is at initial stage, this Court is of the opinion that the
petitioners are not entitled for quashing the proceedings at this stage.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this petition,
shall stand closed.
___________________
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
Date: 02.12.2024
KGR