Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Dr Anji Reddy Multi Specialty Hospital … vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 February, 2025
APHC010016312022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 197/2022
Between:
1. DR ANJI REDDY MULTI SPECIALTY HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,
REP. BY DR. LOKI REDDY ANJI REDDY MANAGING DIRECTOR
MAIN ROAD, PIDUGURALLA TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR
DISTRICT
2. LOKIREDDY SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O. ANJI REDDY AGED ABOUT
45 YEARS,OCC. DOCTOR MANAGING PARTNER OF DR. ANJI
REDDY MULTI SPECIALTY HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED. MAIN
ROAD, PIDUGURALLA TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT
3. LOKIREDDY SUSHMA REDDY, W/O. SRINIVASA REDDY. AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS OCC. DOCTOR MANAGING PARTNER OF DR.
ANJI REDDY MULTI SPECIALTY HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED.
MAIN ROAD, PIDUGURALLA TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR
DISTRICT
4. CHINTHA KRISHNA CHAINTANYA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC.
DOCTOR, CONSULTANT DOCTOR IN DR.ANJIREDDY MULTI
SPECIALTY HOSPITAL MAIN ROAD, PIDUGURALLA TOWN AND
MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT
AMARAVATHI THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
PIDUGURALLA.
2. KATAKAM VENKATESWARLU, S/O. KOTESWARA RAO, AGED
ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 16-75, KUMMARIPALEM,
PIDUGURALLA TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. GANDHAM DURGA BOSE
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused, seeking to quash
the proceedings against them in C.C.No.606 of 2021 on the file of the Court of
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piduguralla, for the offences punishable
under Sections 188, 354, 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section
51(b) of Disaster Management Act, 2005.
2. Heard Sri Gandham Durga Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioners,
and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for
Respondent No.1/State. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf
of Respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the complaint
does not disclose any offence against the Petitioners. Learned counsel would
further submit that, in view of the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C, cognizance
cannot be taken for the offence under Section 188 IPC. It is submitted that,
absolutely there are no specific allegations in the complaint to attract the
offence under Section 506 IPC. Learned counsel would finally submit that
continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of
law.
4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are
specific allegations against the Petitioners to attract the alleged offences and it
is not a fit case for quashment.
3
5. As seen from the record, though the complaint was filed for the offences
punishable under Sections 188, 354, 420 and 506 IPC and Section 51(b) of
the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the summons that were issued to the
Petitioners, which are placed on record, prima facie show that the Court has
issued the said summons to the Petitioners to answer the charge under
Sections 188 and 506 read with 34 IPC only.
6. A bare perusal of Section 195 Cr.P.C makes it clear that, to prosecute a
person for the offence punishable under Section 188 IPC, a complaint has to
be made by the concerned officer, whose order was violated. Whereas, the
instant complaint was not filed by any such officer. Further, to attract the
offence under Section 506 IPC, Respondent No.2 is required to prove that the
Petitioners had threatened him with injury to his person, reputation or property
and that they did so with an intent to cause alarm and to cause Respondent
No.2 to perform any act which he is not legally bound to do. The threat should
be a real and not just a mere word. Empty threats do not mean that the case
under Section 506 IPC is made out. An offence under this Section by words
cannot be made out unless it is proved that these words were uttered with
specific intention. A reading of the contents of the complaint would show that,
except stating that the Petitioners have abused Respondent No.2 in a filthy
language, no specific overt act is attributed against the Petitioners to attract
the offence under Section 506 IPC.
7. In view of the aforementioned discussion, and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no prima facie case is
4
made out against the Petitioners for the alleged offences and hence, the
proceedings against Petitioners are liable to be quashed by exercising the
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings
against Petitioners/Accused in C.C.No.606 of 2021 on the file of the Court of
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piduguralla.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________
Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Date:06.02.2025
Dinesh
5
HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Crl.P.No.197 of 2022
Dt.06.02.2025
Dinesh