Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Gokaraju Rama Raju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 January, 2025
APHC010595642022
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: 8757/2022
Between:
1. GOKARAJU RAMA RAJU, S/O GANGA RAJU, AGE. 55 YEARS,
KSHATRIYA, SECRETARY, ASRAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,
ASRAAM MEDICAL COLLEGE, MALKAPURAM VILLAGE, ELURU
MANDAL. R/O ELURUPADU VILLAGE, KALLA MANDAL
2. K. ANJI REDDY,, S/O VEERA REDDY, AGE. 80 YEARS, REDDY,
MEDICAL DIRECTOR, ASRAM HOSPITAL AND COLLEGE,
MALKAPURAM VILLAGE, ELURU MANDAL
3. K. HANUMANTHA RAO,, S/O K.V. RAGHAVAIAH, AGE. 61 YEARS,
KAMMA, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, ASRAM MEDICAL
COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, MALKAPURATN VILLAGE, ELURU
MANDAL
4. K. UMA MAHESWARA RAO,, S/O TIRUPATHI RAO, AGE. 72 YEARS,
SISTA KARANAM, PRINCIPAL, ASRAM MEDICAL COLLEGE,
MALKAPURAM VILLAGE, ELURU MANDAL.
5. SANAM VIJAYA MOHAN RAO, , S/O LATE RAMA RAO, AGE. 72
YEARS, TELAGA, SUPERINTENDED, ASRAM HOSPITAL,
MALKAPURAM VILLAGE, ELURU MANDAL.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH. COURT OF JUDICATURE AT AMARAVATI
2. KANCHERLA MAHESH BABU, NATANI, AGE. 30 YEARS, SC-MALA,
RIO PEDDALINGAMPADU VILLAGE, BHIMADOLE MANDAL, WEST
GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. N NAVEEN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI
2
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
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 5, seeking
quashment of proceedings against them in Spl.S.C.No.121 of 2021 on the file
of the Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-VIII
Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru for the
offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Sections 3 (1)
(r) (s) and 3(2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Amendment Act, 20153.
2. Heard Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
N.Naveen Kumar and Sri Ramakrishna Akurathi, learned counsel for
Respondent No.2. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 is in attendance.
3. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the allegations leveled
against the Petitioners are bald and baseless. Learned Senior Counsel would
further submit that, for the first time it is alleged that, on 24.09.2015 when
Respondent No.2 questioned about the expiry of antigen kits, he was
threatened and abused by the Petitioners in the name of his caste and such
allegations were absent in various other complaints filed by Respondent No.2
1 for short ‘Cr.P.C‘
2 for short ‘IPC‘
3 for short ‘SCST Act’
3
before various authorities. It is further submitted that, previously, based on
the complaint given by Respondent No.2 a case in Crime No.59 of 2017 on
the file of Eluru Rural Police Station, West Godavari District was registered
against the Petitioners herein for the offence under Section 506 read with 34
IPC and Section 3(1) (r) (s) of SCST Act and the Police, after investigation,
filed a final report referring the case as ‘false’. As such, the present protest
petition has been filed by Respondent No.2 by examining 11 witnesses, who
were terminated by the Management of ASRAM hospital upon the closure of
the Diagnostics Centre. It is submitted that, there is an inordinate delay of
approximately two years from the date of alleged incidents and the date of
filing of the complaint. Learned Senior Counsel would finally submit that no
prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners to connect them with the
alleged offences. As such, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners
is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the
proceedings against the Petitioners. In support of his contentions, learned
counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Delhi Race Club (1940) and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another4, Mohammad Wajid and another vs. State of U.P and others 5,
Vasanti Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh6, Kishan Singh (dead)
through L.Rs vs. Gurpal Singh and others7, State of Andhra Pradesh vs.
4
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248
5
2023 SCC OnLine SC 951
6
(2012) 2 SCC 731
7
(2010) 8 SCC 775
4
M.Madhusudhan Rao8 and the judgment of Composite High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in Punugoti Naga Kiran Kumar vs. State of A.P., and another9.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that,
there are specific allegations against the Petitioners and the same have to be
decided during trial. At this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioners
cannot be quashed. 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 No.1 to 5 in
Spl.S.C.No.121 of 2021 on the file of the Special Judge for trial
of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-VIII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru?
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
8
(2008) 15 SCC 582
9
2014 SCC OnLine AP 1186
5
reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against
sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.
7. In the case on hand, admittedly, Respondent No.2 was appointed in
ASRAM Educational Society as a part-time Laboratory Assistant on
18.10.2012 and joined as a part-time trainee laboratory assistant on
01.04.2015. It is alleged against the Petitioners that, while Respondent No.2
was working as Lab technician in ASRAM Diagnostic Centre,
Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 had supplied Anti Gen kit (widal) and having
found that the said kit was expired, Respondent No.2 brought the same to the
notice of the Petitioners, due to which, having developed grouse against him,
the Petitioners abused him in the name of his caste in the presence of his
colleagues and also threatened him with dire consequences. As such,
Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint with the Police, which was registered as
a case in Crime No.59 of 2017 for the alleged offences on 07.04.2017.
8. A bare perusal of the material placed on record would disclose that,
prior to lodging of the said complaint, there were internal disputes between the
Respondent No.2 and the Management of ASRAM educational Society.
Based on the complaint given by one Sri K.Sumanth Kumar, the Management
had issued a charge memo-cum-show cause notice dated 16.09.2015 to
Respondent No.2 with regard to his negligence and inducement behaviour
with the patients and his insubordination and careless attitude. On receipt of
the same, on 28.09.2015 Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the
Management to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Eluru alleging that the
6
Management had been paying less salary to him. Subsequently, on
29.09.2015, having considered the explanation given by Respondent No.2 for
the said show-cause notice, Accused No.3, who is the Chief Administrative
Officer of ASRAM Education Society had given an opportunity to him to
change his behaviour. On 10.10.2015, Accused No.3 had given another
charge memo to Respondent No.2 questioning his action in giving a complaint
to the Medical Director and in creating unnecessary troubles to the
administration by making false allegations. Respondent No.2 gave an evasive
explanation for the said notice on 03.11.2015 and also lodged a complaint
dated 19.11.2015 with the A.P.State Commissioner for SC & ST Ex Secretary
to Government of A.P., against the Management. Subsequently, on
05.05.2016, the Management entered into a compromise with Respondent
No.2 herein along with other employees agreeing to enhance the salary of
Respondent No.2 and also to absorb him into regular service on the condition
that Respondent No.2 shall withdraw all the civil and criminal complaints made
to various authorities. Subsequent to the said compromise, on 11.03.2017,
the Management discontinued the operations of the Diagnostic Centre and
terminated the services of Respondent No.2 herein by paying one month’s
salary. Aggrieved thereby, the present complaint was filed by Respondent
No.2 on 12.04.2017.
9. As alleged by Respondent No.2, Petitioners said to have committed the
alleged offences of criminal intimidation and abusing him in the name of his
caste on 24.09.2015. Whereas, the complaint has been lodged on
7
12.04.2017 i.e., approximately after two years of the alleged incident.
Aggrieved by the show cause notices issued by the Management and the
subsequent termination of Respondent No.2, to wreak vengeance against the
Petitioners, the present complaint has been filed with false and frivolous
allegations against them. W.P. (PIL) No.171 of 2019 filed by Respondent
No.2 on the file of this Court was also dismissed vide Order dated 01.04.2021
on the ground that he has an element of personal interest in the affairs of
ASRAM Educational Society and the said application was not filed with public
interest.
10. The entire material on record would go to show the conduct and attitude
of Respondent No.2 in discharging his duties and in filing false complaints
against the Management of ASRAM Educational Society and thereby causing
troubles to them. The protest petition has been filed by Respondent No.2 as if
it was a first complaint, by inserting certain allegations which were not found
place in the earlier complaint lodged by him. As per the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and
others10, even if the allegations mentioned in the protest petition are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie
constitute the alleged offences against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings against the
Petitioners.
10 AIR 1992 SC 604
8
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings
against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Spl.S.C.No.121 of 2021 on the file
of the Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-VIII
Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru for the
offence under Section 506 IPC and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3(2) (va) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015, are hereby quashed.
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.8757 of 2022
Dt.21.01.2025
Dinesh
[ad_1]
Source link