Aswartha Reddy Madulapuram Aswartha vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 January, 2025

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Aswartha Reddy Madulapuram Aswartha vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 January, 2025

APHC010109822022
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
                                PRADESH
                             AT AMARAVATI
                      (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396]
             TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY
                 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
                                PRESENT
  THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
                 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1840/2022
Between:
  1. ASWARTHA REDDY @ MADULAPURAM ASWARTHA, S/O M.C.
     HANUMANTHA REDDY, AGED 36 YEARS, OCC. PANCHAYATH
     SECRETARY, R/O. D. NO. 2-4, PATHIKUNTAPALLI, SOMANDEPALLI
     MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DIST.
  2. M. SREENIVASA REDDY @ SOFTWARE SEENA @ MUDALAPURAM
     SREENIVASULU, S/O. M. HAMUNANTHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38
     YEARS, OCC. SOFTWARE ENGINEER,                R/O. D. NO. 2-4,
     PATHIKUNTAPALLI, SOMANDEPALLI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU
     DIST.
  3. KIRAN @ S. KIRAN KUMAR, S/O. S. NAGABHUSHANA, AGED
     ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. VILLAGE VOLUNTEER, R/O. D. NO. 2-86,
     PATHIKUNTAPALLI,             SOMANADEPALLI             MANDAL,
     ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.
                                           ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
                                  AND
  1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
     PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA
     PRADESH. AT AMARAVATHI.
  2. GAJULA RAVI, S/O. LATE G. ESWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45
     YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. PRATHIKUNTAPALLI VILLAGE,
     SOMANDEPALLI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.
                                    ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
  1. N RANGA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
  1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
                                            2


ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

19731 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.6, 8 and 10, seeking

quashment of proceedings against them in Crime No.18 of 2022 on the file of

Somandepalli Police Station, Ananthapur District registered for the offence

under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602.

2. Heard Sri V.Sai Kiran, learned counsel representing Sri N.Ranga

Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi,

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. Inspite of

service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that there are disputes

between the family of Respondent No.2 and Accused No.1 for the last 25

years. Learned counsel would further submit that prima facie the ingredients

of the alleged offence do not attract against the Petitioners. Learned counsel

would further submit that the Petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged

offence and they are not the parties to the alleged disputes. Learned counsel

would further submit that Accused No.6 is working as Village Secretary in

Pulakunta Panchayat, and he was on duty at the relevant time.

Petitioner/Accused No.8 is a Software Engineer in Bangalore and

Petitioner/Accused No.10 is working as Village Volunteer. All the Petitioners

are respectable persons and were falsely implicated in the present crime.

Learned counsel would finally submit that there are no specific allegations

for short ‘Cr.P.C‘
1

for short ‘IPC‘
2
3

against the Petitioners and hence, continuation of proceedings against them is

an abuse of process of law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel

has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madan

Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and another3, Sanju @ Sanjay Singh

Sengar Vs. State of M.P.,4, State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu and

Others5

4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that this is

a premature stage to decide the culpability of the Petitioners in the alleged

crime. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the complaint

discloses the names of the Petitioners. It is submitted that, in view of the stay

granted, the investigation has not been completed and unless the same is

completed, the presence of the Petitioners at the time of the alleged incident

cannot be revealed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Point for Determination

5. 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
the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.6, 8 and
10 in Crime No.18 of 2022 on the file of Somandepalli Police
Station, Ananthapur District?

3

(2010) 8 SCC 628
4
(2002) 5 SCC 371
5
(2019) 10 SCC 18
4

Determination by the Court

6. 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

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.

7. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana

and others v. Bhajanlal and others6 is considered as the guiding torch in the

application of Section 482. At Paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt

out as follows;

“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.

6 AIR 1992 SC 604
5

(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 uncontroverted 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.

103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of
quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly
and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that
the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers
do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to
its whim or caprice.”

(emphasis supplied)
6

8. As seen from the contents of the complaint, Respondent No.2 is the

brother of the deceased. It is alleged that, Respondent No.2 and his two

brothers have agricultural land of an extent of Ac.2.00 cents each and they

have been cultivating the same by raising paddy and other crops. There are

disputes between the families of Respondent No.2 and the family of Accused

No.1 for the last 25 years. In connection with the said disputes, Accused No.1

and his family members have been damaging the crops of Respondent No.2

and his brothers, due to which, the deceased stopped cultivation.

Eventhough, Accused No.1 and his family members used to insult the

deceased and threatening him to leave the village. While so, on 18.01.2022

at about 3.00 p.m., while Respondent No.2, the deceased, the wife of the

deceased were going to their fields, at Marikuntapalli Cross Road, Accused

Nos.1 to 10 restrained and quarrelled with the deceased and threatened to kill

him. They also provoked him to commit suicide, otherwise they would not

leave us until we leave the village. Unbearable with the said harassment of all

the Accused, on 19.01.2022 at about 7.00 a.m., the deceased consumed

PROFOS pesticide and while undergoing treatment, he died on 23.01.2022 at

5.45 p.m. As such, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint against all

the Accused.

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

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others7, wherein, a

7 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315
7

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;

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
8

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)

10. A bare perusal of the contents of the complaint would disclose that

there are disputes between the families of Respondent No.2 and Accused

No.1 for the last several years and with regard to the same, they have been

harassing the family members of Respondent No.2, which led the deceased to

commit suicide. Admittedly, in view of the stay granted, the investigation has

not been done. As rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor the

names of the Petitioners were mentioned in the complaint. The allegations

levelled against the Petitioners are specific and the same have to be revealed

during investigation. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the
9

Petitioners that they are employees and they were not present in the village at

the relevant time, the same has to be proved during investigation. There are

no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners, at this

stage. As such, at this stage, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial while

deciding the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The case is not falling

under any of the guidelines mentioned in Bhajanlal‟s case (supra). In view of

the facts and circumstances of the present case, the judgments relied on by

the learned counsel for the Petitioners are not helpful to the case of the

Petitioners. There are no merits for quashment of the proceedings against the

Petitioners/Accused Nos.6, 8 and 10 and hence, the petition deserves

dismissal.

11. At the time of pronouncement of this Order, learned counsel for the

Petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that there is interim protection

not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioners till this day and the same

protection may be given to the Petitioners directing the Police to proceed with

the investigation.

12. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that Court may pass

appropriate orders.

13. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case

and also the grievance expressed by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, it

is left open to the Petitioners to move an anticipatory bail application before

the District Court at Hindupur and on filing such application, the learned Judge
10

is requested to dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible

preferably on the same day according to law.

14. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed with the above

observations. Police are directed to proceed with the investigation.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________________________
Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Date:07.01.2025
Dinesh
11

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Crl.P.No.1840 of 2022

Dt.07.01.2025

Dinesh