Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1454 (AP)

J. Simon Vijaya Kumar v. State Of A. P.

2003-11-25

body2003
( 1 ) THIS is an application to quash the proceedings in Cr. No. 179 of 2003 of Narsapur Town Police Station, registered under Sections 354, 427, 323, 506 read with section 34 IPC. ( 2 ) SECOND respondent gave a report to the Station House Officer, Narsapur Town police Station alleging that subsequent to the death of her husband her brother-in-law i. e. , the elder brother of her husband, has been subjecting her to harassment and tried to murder her, and in that connection she gave a police report, and that her brother-in-law, alleging that he was advised by the petitioner, who is his Counsel, that he should somehow obtain her signatures on some papers, came to her on 30-9-2003 at about 9. 00 p. m. , along with his servant adinarayana and attempted to kill her and outraged her modesty, giving out that his pleader, i. e. , the petitioner, wanted him to get the signatures somehow or the other on white papers. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, who is an advocate, would not have instigated his client, i. e. , the brother-in-law of the second respondent, to commit the offence under Section 354 IPC, and the fact that Adinarayana, referred to in the complaint, is not even shown as an accused by police clearly establishes the contention of the brother-in-law of the de-facto complainant (second respondent) that because Adinarayana is her henchman, he is not shown as an accused but the petitioner, who was not even present there, is shown as an accused. It is his contention that since the petitioner is an advocate, and since there is nothing on record to show that he committed any of the offences alleged, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. It is his contention that since the petitioner is an advocate, and since there is nothing on record to show that he committed any of the offences alleged, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. The contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent is that since the brother-in-law of the second respondent, when he trespassed into her room, gave out that the petitioner instigated him to obtain her signatures and caused havoc, question as to whether the petitioner did instigate the brother-in-law of the second respondent or not has to be investigated into by police, and if the police, during investigation, find that the petitioner instigated the brother-in-law of the second respondent to obtain her signatures by hook or crook, police would file a charge-sheet against him, and if it is found that he (petitioner) did not instigate the brother-in-law of the second respondent, they would refer the case as false as far as the petitioner is concerned, and so there are no grounds to quash the f. I. R. at this stage. ( 4 ) THE principles governing quashing of an F. I. R. are well known. Recently the supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Devendrappa, 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 412 (SC) = 2002 (3) SCC 89 , after reviewing the case law on the subject, held that power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. should be exercised EX DEBITO JS TITIAE to prevent abuse of process of Court and should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution, by embarking upon an enquiry as to the sustainability of the accusation or a reasonable appreciation of evidence, and that allegations of mala fides against the informant is of no consequence and cannot by itself, be the basis for quashing the proceedings. ( 5 ) AS rightly contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent, question whether the petitioner instigated the brother- in-law of the second respondent or not, is a matter of investigation by police. If the police, after investigation, find that the petitioner did not instigate the brother-in-law of the petitioner, and that the brother-in-law of the petitioner made use of the name of the petitioner falsely, they would not file a charge-sheet against the petitioner. If the police, after investigation, find that the petitioner did not instigate the brother-in-law of the petitioner, and that the brother-in-law of the petitioner made use of the name of the petitioner falsely, they would not file a charge-sheet against the petitioner. If the petitioner instigated the brother-in-law of the second respondent to obtain the signatures of the second respondent by hook or crook on white papers, then he would be charge-sheeted under the relevant provisions of law. ( 6 ) IT is well known that at this stage this Court has to go by the averments in the complaint only, and cannot look into or consider any other documents or circumstances. When the allegations in the complaint show that the petitioner instigated his client to somehow obtain the signatures of second respondent, it is not open to this court to quash the complaint against the petitioner on an assumption that petitioner might not have stated so and that the brother-in-law of the second respondent falsely gave out his name. Therefore, I find no grounds to quash the complaint against the petitioner at this stage. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, since the petitioner is said to be an Advocate, and since his arrest has been stayed till today, he is being granted anticipatory bail with a direction to surrender before the Station House Officer, Narsapur town Police Station in Cr. No. 179 of 2003 within one week from today and execute a bond for Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with two sureties in a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House officer, Narsapur Town Police Station. He should make himself available for interrogation by police as and when required in connection with the said crime. Depending on the result of the investigation, petitioner is at liberty to seek the remedies available to him.