Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Kandavalli Prabhakara Rao Prabhakar, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 21 January, 2025
APHC010239082022
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: 3597/2022
Between:
1. KANDAVALLI PRABHAKARA RAO @ PRABHAKAR,, S/O LATE SRI
MAHALAKSHMI, HINDU, AGE- 40 YEARS, OCC- HEAD CONSTABLE,
SAKHINATIPALLI PS, SAKHINATIPALLI - 533 251, KONASEEMA
DISTRICT
2. ANASURI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O SRI VENKANNA, HINDU. AGE- 52
YEARS. OCC- ASST. SUB INSPECTOR, SPECIAL BRANCH, 0/O SP,
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT
3. BEERA VENKATA RATNAM,, S/O SRI VENKATA RAO, HINDU, AGE-
49 YEARS, OCC- HEAD CONSTABLE, VARA
RAMACHANDRAPURAM PS, VARA RAMACHANDRAPURAM - 533
255 ALLURI SITARAMA RAJU DISTRICT
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT
AMARAVATHI. (NOT A NECESSARY PARTY)
2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF
SPE AND ACB CASES, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI
DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. N SIVA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. A GAYATHRI REDDY Standing Counsel for ACB cum Spl. PP
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.1 to 3 seeking to quash the
proceedings against them in C.C.No.677 of 2021 on the file of the Court of VII
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram for the offence
under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602.
2. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners and
Ms.A.Gayatri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ACB-cum-Special Public
Prosecutor.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners
herein are P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 in C.C.No.7 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Special
Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram. Learned counsel would
further submit that without following the procedure contemplated under Section
340 Cr.P.C., the present complaint has been filed for the offence under Section
193 IPC, as such, the same is not maintainable under law. Learned counsel
would finally submit that the learned Magistrate had mechanically taken
cognizance of the alleged offence against the Petitioners. 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 N.S.Nandiesha Reddy vs. Kavitha Mahesh3, Sasikala Pushpa
1 for short ‘Cr.P.C‘
2
for short ‘IPC‘
3
Civil Appeal No.4821 of 2012, dated03.08.2021
3
and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu4 and Amarsang Nathaji vs. Hardik
Harshadbhai Patel5.
4. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the
learned Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram has
followed the established procedure of Cr.P.C and has given directions to the
Senior Superintendent of the Court to file a complaint against the Petitioners
herein. It is submitted that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings
against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
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.1 to 3 in
C.C.No.677 of 2021 on the file of the Court of VII Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram?
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
4
(2019) 6 SCC 477
5
(2017) 1 SCC 113
4
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. A bare perusal of the material placed on record would reveal that, based
on the complaint lodged by Accused No.1 herein, a case in C.C.No.7 of 2018
was registered against Gunnam Satyanarayana and Kantaspurthi Sreeramulu
before the trial Court for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned trial Judge, after
full-fledged trial, having come to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to
prove the case against said Gunnam Satyanarayana, beyond reasonable doubt,
acquitted him from the said case and dismissed the case against Kantaspurthi
Sreeremulu since he died. The learned trial Judge, while acquitting said Gunnam
Satyanarayana, directed the Chief Administrative Officer of the said Court to
lodge a complaint against the Petitioners herein for the offence punishable under
Section 193 IPC for giving false evidence. Accordingly, based on the complaint
filed by the Senior Superintendent of the trial Court, C.C.No.44 of 2019 was
registered against the Petitioners herein on the file of the Court of III Additional
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram for the offence under
Section 193 IPC. Subsequently, the said case was transferred to the Court of the
learned VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram and
renumbered as C.C.No.677 of 2021. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has
been filed for quashment of the case against the Petitioners.
8. A bare perusal of the judgment in C.C.No.677 of 2021 would reveal that,
as rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, there are inconsistencies and
improvements in the version of Accused No.1, who is the Complainant in the said
5
case, regarding the alleged demand of bribe. Petitioner/Accused No.1 had
changed his version from time to time, which are inconsistent regarding the
crucial aspects as to who demanded the bribe and the date, place and mode of
alleged demand of bribe. Further, Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 herein, who
are P.Ws.2 and 6 in C.C.No.7 of 2018 also gave evidence by introducing a new
story deviating from their earlier versions. In such circumstances, this Court is of
the view that the truth or otherwise of the allegations leveled against the
Petitioners herein, has to be revealed during trial. The judgments relied on by the
learned counsel for the Petitioners are not helpful to the case of the Petitioners.
There are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners at
this stage and hence, the petition deserves dismissal.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________
Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Date:21.01.2025
Dinesh
6
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Crl.P.No.3597 of 2022
Dated:21.01.2025
Dinesh