Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Anil Kumar Harbola vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 January, 2025
APHC010400022022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3396]
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6122/2022
Between:
1. ANIL KUMAR HARBOLA, S/O LATE NAND KISHOR HARBOLA
AGED ABOUT 57 YRS OCC . COMMANDER, PRESENTLY
WORKING AT HEADQUARTERS, COAST GUARD REGION
(NORTH-WEST), GANDHI NAGAR, GUJARAT.
2. RAM MEHAR, S/O LATE PRABHU RAM, AGED ABOUT 56 YRS
OCC . MATER CHIEF BOATSWAIN-MATE PRESENTLY
WORKING AT INDIAN COAST GUARD POLLUTION RESPONSE
TEAM (WEST), MAZGAON, MUMBAI
3. SHIV PRATAP YADAV, S/O LATE RAJ NATH YADAV AGED
ABOUT 46 YRS OCC .IN-CHARGE MINOR AND LP (DTP AND
GEM CASES)PRESENTLY WORKING AT COAST GUARD
DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS NO.11 (GOA) CHICOLINA,
BAGMALO, GOA- 403 806.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF AP
2. B SHANTI, W/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
C-1/6, COAST GUARD QUARTERS, MALKAPURAM,
VISHAKAPATNAM.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. S V R SUBRAHMANYAM
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
19731 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking
quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.857 of 2021 on the file of
the Court of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajuwaka for the
offences under Sections 354, 427, 506 and 509 read with 120B of the Indian
Penal Code2.
2. Heard Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned Additional Solicitor General
assisted by Sri Jupudi V.K.Yagnadutt, learned Central Government Counsel
for Petitioners, Sri S.V.R.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for Respondent
No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in
attendance.
3. Learned Additional Solicitor General would submit that the Petitioners
herein are the Coast Guard Officers and Respondent No.2 herein is the wife
of a Civilian Officer. It is further submitted that the present complaint has
been lodged after 3 ½ months of the alleged incident. It is submitted that,
based on the complaint lodged by the Respondent No.2, a case in Crime
No.140 of 2017 has been registered against Accused Nos.1 to 7 for the
offences under Sections 354, 427, 506 and 509 read with 120B IPC on the
file of Malkapuram L&O Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, wherein, the
Police filed final report by referring the case as ‘false’. Aggrieved thereby,
Respondent No.2 filed a protest petition and without there being any
1 for short ‘Cr.P.C‘
2 for short ‘IPC‘
3
additional material, the Court has taken cognizance on the offences against
the Petitioners. It is further submitted that the trial Court has not followed the
procedure contemplated under Section 200 Cr.P.C for taking cognizance of
the case based on a protest petition. It is submitted that Accused No.2
retired from services in May, 2023 and because of the present case, he is
getting provisional pension only and the promotion of Accused No.1 is
deferred. It is further submitted that the present proceedings are barred
under Section 122 of the Coast Guard Act, 1978. Learned Additional
Solicitor General would finally submit that the Petitioners are falsely
implicated in the present case based on the false and frivolous allegations.
Therefore, continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse of process
of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the
Petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that the husband
of Respondent No.2 is a Gazetted Civilian Officer and they were allotted a
quarter in Indian Coast Guard District Head Quarters, Malkapuram. Learned
counsel would further submit that, the Petitioners being the residents of the
same township quarters, with a view to drive them away from the quarters,
damaged the car of Respondent No.2 and also committed several offences
against them. Accused No.4, who is the wife of Petitioner/Accused No.2
used to quarrel with Respondent No.2, who is working as an Accountant in
the Coast Guard. Though Respondent No.2 lodged complaint against the
Petitioners, the Police did not take any action. Learned counsel would
4
further submit that the Accused got issued memos to the husband of
Respondent No.2 one after the other. It is submitted that the sworn
statements of Respondent No.2 and the other witnesses were also recorded
and they are also filed before this Court. Learned counsel would finally
submit that, there are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against
the Petitioners. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. In reply, learned Additional Solicitor General would submit that, in the
sworn statements, the incident happened in the year 2016 were mentioned.
In support of his contentions, the learned Additional Solicitor General has
placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.R.Sukumar
vs. S.Sunaad Raghuram3 and Pradeep S. Wodeyar vs. The State of
Karnataka4.
Point for Determination
6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing
both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:
Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of
proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in
C.C.No.857 of 2021 on the file of the Court of III Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajuwaka?
Determination by the Court
7. A bare 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
3
(2015) 9 SCC 609
4
Criminal Appeal Nos.1288 of 2021 & Batch, dated 29.11.2021
5
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.
8. This is a case, wherein, Respondent No.2 alleged that Accused No.1,
who is a Commanding Officer, Coast Guard, Malkapuram Base, having
conspired with Accused Nos.2 to 7 showed bias, raised various false
allegations against her and her husband B.Satyanarayana, who is working
as a Gazetted Civilian Officer in Indian Coast Guard at Malkapuram Base
and harassed them mentally. Accused No.1 uttered in foul language against
Respondent No.2, supported Accused No.2 who is the wife of Accused No.2
in raising disputes, threatened to kill her and Accused Nos.6 and 7 damaged
her car by marking scratches.
9. Based on the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2, a case in Crime
No.140 of 2017 has been registered against Accused Nos.1 to 7 for the
offences under Sections 354, 427, 506 and 509 read with 120B IPC on the
file of Malkapuram L&O Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. The Police,
after due investigation, filed a final report dated 23.08.2017 stating that,
Respondent No.2 is in the habit of raising disputes with all the neighbours for
trivial issues and file petitions against them to the Authorities. It is further
6
stated that, the Board which was appointed to resolve the issues, also found
fault with Respondent No.2. Having found that there was no evidence in
support of the allegation of scratching her car and threatening to her family
members, the Board of enquiry also issued a notice to the husband of
Respondent No.2. In such circumstances, the Police, having found no prima
facie material against the Petitioners, referred the said crime as ‘false’.
10. A bare perusal of the material placed on record would show that, in
view of the conduct of Respondent No.2 herein, a notice dated 16.03.2017
was issued to her husband by the Lt.Colonel, Accommodation Officer,
demanding them to vacate the Coast Guard accommodation allotted to
them. Subsequent to the said notice, i.e., after more than three months, a
complaint has been lodged against all the Accused. It is contended by the
learned Additional Solicitor General that the present proceedings are barred
under Section 122 of the Coast Guard Act, 1978. At this stage, for ready
reference, it is apposite to extract Section 122 of the Act, which reads as
under.
“122. Protection for acts of members of the Coast Guard –
(1) In any suit or proceeding against any member of the Coast
Guard for any act done by him in pursuance of a warrant or order
of a competent authority, it shall be lawful for him to plead that
such act was done by him under the authority of such warrant or
order.
(2) Any such plea may be proved by the production of the
warrant or order directing the act, and if it is so proved, the
member of the Coast Guard shall thereupon be discharged from
7liability in respect of the act so done by him, notwithstanding any
defect in the jurisdiction of the authority which issued such
warrant or order.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
the time being in force, any legal proceeding (whether civil or
criminal) which may lawfully be brought against any member of
the Coast Guard for anything done or intended to be done under
the powers conferred by, or in pursuance of any provision of this
Act or the rules, shall be commenced within three months after
the act complained of was committed and not otherwise, and
notice in writing of such proceeding and of the cause thereof shall
be given to the defendant or his superior officer at least one
month before the commencement of such proceeding.”
11. In the case on hand, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint
after three months of the alleged incident that too, without there being any
notice to the higher authorities of the Petitioners with regard to initiation of
criminal proceedings against them. Therefore, it is clear that, Respondent
No.2 has not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 122 of the
Coast Guard Act, 1978. As such, the present complaint is barred under the
said provision.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the
allegations leveled against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 are bald and
omnibus and no prima facie case is made out against them for the offences
alleged against them. In such circumstances, continuation of proceedings
8
against the Petitioners is a sheer abuse of process of law and therefore, it is
a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the
proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.857 of 2021
on the file of the Court of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Gajuwaka for the offences under Sections 354, 427, 506 and 509 read with
120B IPC.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________
Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Date: 21.01.2025
Dinesh
9
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Crl.P.No.6122 of 2022
Dt.21.01.2025
Dinesh
