Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/1299/2019 of C.C.SEKHAR REDDY Vs STATE OPF AP on 31 December 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1258/2019 Between: Balineni Srinivasa Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
APHC010058492019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3333]
TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHACRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1258/2019
Between:
Balineni Srinivasa Reddy and Others
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1.MALIREDDY GOWTHAM
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1299/2019
Between:
C.c.sekhar Reddy and Others
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
State Of AP and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1.MALIREDDY GOWTHAM
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER:
These two criminal petitions are filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) by the petitioners/accused to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.37 of 2019 of the Ongole II Town Police Station, Prakasam District for the offences registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 188, 341 and 332 of IPC read with 149 of IPC.
2. As the present criminal petitions are filed against the same crime i.e., C.C.No.37 of 2019 of the Ongole II Town Police Station, Prakasam District , both the petitions are decided by way of common order.
3. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.1258 of 2019 are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2; petitioners in Crl.P.No.1299 of 2019 were arraigned as accused Nos.9 to 19, in C.C.No.37 of 2019 of the Ongole II Town Police Station, Prakasam District. The 2[nd] respondent is the de facto complainant in both the criminal petitions.
4. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
a) The 2[nd] respondent is the de facto complainant and lodged a complaint on 25.02.2019 vide F.I.R.No.37 of 2019 in Ongole II Town Police Station, Prakasam District, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 188, 341 and 332 of IPC read with 149 of IPC against the petitioners/accused.
b) The 2[nd] respondent filed the said F.I.R.No.37 of 2019, duly alleging that while he was working as Constable in Ongole Police District Headquarters in the Special Police Party, on 25.02.2019, YSR Congress Party organized a program to inaugurate new party office at Kammapalem on the eve of joining of Akula Srihari and Akula Sitharamaiah into YSR Congress Party from TDP. While he was on duty in the Special Police Party Bandobast, at that time, workers belonging to YSR Congress Party congregated at Kothapatnam bus stand coming from II Town by vehicles and motorcycles and also organized rally. They came from Balineni Srinivasa Reddy house through VIP Road. At that juncture TDP workers also assembled in the same place. With a view to prevent unto word incident, the police urged them to stay there, but they proceeded further holding sticks and stones.
c) While the 2[nd] respondent was discharging his duties, he sustained head injury due to hit by the stone which came from Kothapatnam bus stand side where workers of YSR Congress Party assembled. By that time when the 2[nd] respondent/defacto complainant enquired, he came to know that 10 persons were present there who were shown as petitioners/accused in the said F.I.R.No.37 of 2019. Therefore, the 2[nd] respondent was immediately taken to the Rims Hospital and given first aid.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners/accused filed these criminal petitions praying this Court to quash the crime in C.C.No.37 of 2019 dated 25.02.2019, on the ground that the complaint does
not disclose who is responsible for hitting the 2[nd] respondent with the stone except stating that it came from Kothapatnam bus stand where the YSR Congress Party workers assembled. It is also the case of the petitioners that all the video and audio visuals clearly exhibits the provocation of the TDP followers with the support of the police to obstruct the rally and party office programme at Kammapalem which is organized by the YSR Congress Party with valid, prior permission. All the allegations in the complaint are politically motivated with a view to implicate the petitioners in a false complaint as petitioners are organizing programs successfully with the support of the people and ruling party leaders.
6. On the one hand, the 2[nd] respondent states that while he was discharging his duties, he was sustained head injury due to hit by the stones which came from Kothapatnam bus stand side where workers of YSR Congress Party assembled. However, the 2[nd] respondent failed to mention the names of persons who hit him with the stones. He further stated in the complaint that when he enquired, he came to know that there were 10 persons in the direction from where he was hit with the stone and he was uncertain who has thrown the stones on him.
7. On the other side, learned Public Prosecutor, as per the directions of this Court, submits a copy of the wound certificate dated 05.04.2019 which shows that the injury is Laciration over scalp near hair line left side front 3 cm bleeding which is simple in nature.
8. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows:
“Whether the charge sheet in C.C.No.37/2019 on the file of the Ongole II Town Police Station, Prakasam District filed against the petitioners herein under Sections 143, 147, 148, 188, 341, 332 read with 149 of I.P.C., is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?”
9. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice.
10. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows:
In “R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab[1]”, the Apex Court laid down the following principles:
(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice;
(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction;
(iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and
(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
11. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar[2]”
12. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand.
13. Learned Public Prosecutor states that the charge sheet is ready but the same could not be numbered. In spite of making his best efforts, the same was returned on two occasions.
14. Prima facie, the 2[nd] respondent could not identify the persons who are responsible for hitting him with the stone which can be presumed that it is a politically motivated complaint and that there is no interim order from this Court. The respondents failed to complete the investigation and file charge sheet even as of now.
15. However, it is an admitted fact that entire scenario discloses that the said complaint is a politically motivated complaint.
16. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings against the accused /petitioners herein are liable to be quashed.
17. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are allowed by quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.37 of 2019 of Ongole II Town Police Station, Prakasam District, against the accused/petitioners herein.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
Date: 31.12.2024 KAS
_________________
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA