Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 881 (AP)

B. Vasudeva Chary v. K. Mohan Reddy

2012-09-14

R.KANTHA RAO

body2012
ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 149 of 2006 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. 2. The petitioners A-1 to A-4 are the officials of Nellore Municipality. The allegations against them made in the private complaint filed by the first respondent complainant were that the petitioners trespassed into the premises of the house of the first respondent and demolished the compound wall on three days, beat the first respondent and also caused injuries to him. After filing of the private complaint by the first respondent, the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, forwarded the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Station House Officer, IV Town Police Station, Nellore for investigation and report. The police investigated into the offence and filed a final report referring the case as false. In protest thereof, the first respondent filed a petition before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate having allowed the petition, recorded the sworn statement of the first respondent and his witnesses and took cognizance of the offence under Section 332, 186, 506 read with 34 of IPC in C.C. No. 149 of 2006. The present petition is filed to quash the entire proceedings in the said case. 3. Heard Sri N. Ravi Prasad, the learned counsel representing the petitioners A-1 to A-4, Sri D. Purnachandra Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent de facto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the second respondent State. 4. It is contended by Sri N. Ravi Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that pursuant to the orders of the Commissioner, Nellore Municipality, the petitioners who are the officials of Nellore Municipality proceeded to the house of the first respondent and caused demolition of the compound wall which was constructed by the first respondent by encroaching the public road. The first respondent allegedly caused obstruction to the duties of the petitioners and on the report lodged by the first petitioner, IV Town Police registered a case in Crime No. 218 of 2001 for the offence under Section 332 and 186 IPC and investigated into the offence and filed charge sheet. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offence against the first respondent. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offence against the first respondent. The first respondent was tried for the said offences in C.C. No. 143 of 2003 and ultimately he was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of, Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 332 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-fortheoffence under Section 186 IPC. Against the said judgment, the first respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2006 wherein the sentence was modified to fine for the offence under Section 332 IPC. 5. According to the learned counsel, the first respondent in retaliation as a counterblast lodged a report falsely alleging that the petitioners trespassed into the house of the first respondent, demolished the compound wall, beat him and caused injuries to him. The learned counsel further contended that in fact no such incident did take place when the first respondent herein obstructed the act of demolition caused by the petitioners, in that process some bricks fell on his feet causing superficial injuries to him and the first respondent lodged a report falsely alleging that the petitioners beat him with bricks on his feet and abused him in filthy language. The learned counsel contended that the act complained of was allegedly done by the petitioners in discharge of their official duties, sanction under-Section 197 Cr.P.C., is required before taking cognizance of the offence against them and therefore, the complaint is liable to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, Sri D. Puma chandra Reddy, the learned counsel for the first respondent-complainant contended that the learned Magistrate considering the statements of the first respondent and the witnesses and having applied his mind, took cognizance of the offence against the petitioners, the petitioners filed the petition before the learned Magistrate seeking their discharge, which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate, no sanction is required in the present case, since the offences alleged have not have been committed in discharge of the official duties of the petitioners, the first respondent was admitted in Govt. Hospital, Nellore and was treated as inpatient for three days and therefore, the case is required to be tried by the learned Magistrate and the proceedings shall not be quashed at the threshold. 7. Hospital, Nellore and was treated as inpatient for three days and therefore, the case is required to be tried by the learned Magistrate and the proceedings shall not be quashed at the threshold. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners went to the house of the first respondent and demolished the compound wall on the ground that the first respondent constructed the said compound wall by encroaching the public road in-spite of the obstruction made by the first respondent, the version of the petitioners is that while the first respondent obstructed the acts of demolition some bricks fell on his feet causing injuries to him. Whereas it is the contention of the first respondent that the petitioners, who are the officials of Nellore Municipality abused him in filthy language, assaulted him, the bricks fell on his feet and caused injuries to him. The question requires to be determined in the present case is as to whether this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can scrutinize the allegations leveled in the complaint so as to arrive at the decision whether the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 8. In this context, for a proper understanding of the scope and extent of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the following judgments are required to be perused. 9. In Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia and others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others (1) (1998) 1 SCC 692, the Supreme Court observed in para No. 7 as follows: “The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and wherein the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.” 10. In Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Hawue (2) 2005 (1) SCC 122 = 2005 SCC (Crl.) 283, the Supreme Court held as follows: "It would be an abuse of process of court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/conditinuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would other wise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the operation of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto." 11. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (3) 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 = 1992 SCC (Crl.) 426, the Apex Court held that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., could be exercised either to prevent the abuse of court or to secure the ends of justice. According to the Supreme Court, the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR/complaint is to be quashed. Similarly it is held by the Supreme Court that where the unconstroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, the FIR can be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is also held by the Supreme Court whether the allegations in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can even reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the FIR can be quashed by invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 12. In Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another (4) 2010 (6) SCJ 609 = 2010 (7) SCC 667 , the Supreme Court after going through several judgments dealing with the scope and extent of powers exercised by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., held that the courts have consistently taken the view that they• must use this extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent injustice and to secure the ends of justice. 13. From the judgment above referred, it has to be understood that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court should not adopt a mechanical or casual approach, it is under a duty to scrutinize the averments of the complaint and the statements of the witnesses if any with a view to ascertain whether the proceedings initiated would result in miscarriage of justice if allowed to continue and whether such initiation amounts to abuse to process of law. Even after cognizance of the offence is taken the court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. examine the allegations leveled in the complaint and the statements of witnesses to arrive at an appropriate conclusion as to whether the allegations are frivolous and absurd. If the court takes prima facie view having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that the allegations leveled in the complaint are manifestly false it has to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint to prevent abuse of process of court and miscarriage of justice. 14. Coming to the instant case, it requires to be seen that in the case filed against the first respondent based on the report of the first petitioner, he was convicted and the conviction was confirmed in the appeal. The incident alleged in the present case also occurred during the process of demolition of the compound wall. The version of the petitioners is that when the first respondent obstructed for the demolition of the compound wall there was a scuffle and in the said process some bricks fell on the complainant causing injuries to him. On the other hand, it is the version of the first respondent that the petitioners abused him in filthy language and beat him with bricks on his feet. The very allegation that the petitioners best the first respondent with bricks on the feet appears to be quite unconvincing. On the other hand, it is the version of the first respondent that the petitioners abused him in filthy language and beat him with bricks on his feet. The very allegation that the petitioners best the first respondent with bricks on the feet appears to be quite unconvincing. When the petitioners with their men could be able to demolish the compound wall in spite of the obstruction caused by the first respondent, there was no necessity for the petitioners, who are the officials of the Nellore Municipality either to abuse or beat the first respondent with bricks on his feet. The version of the petitioners that in the process of obstruction caused by the first respondent some bricks fell on his feet and thereby her received injuries appears to be truthful and convincing. If the version of the first respondent that the petitioners beat him with bricks on his feet is found to be false and the act of demolition being made by the petitioners on the orders of the Commission, Nellore Municipality certainly sanction is required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. to prosecute the petitioners before taking cognizance. Therefore, the present complaint in my view is bad for want of sanction required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. In any event, the manner in which the private complaint was filed by the first respondent and the nature of the allegations against the petitioners clearly appears to be false ex-facie. The case filed against the first respondent on the report of the first petitioner on the allegations that the first respondent obstructed the petitioners 1 to 4 from discharging their official duties ended in conviction and attained finality. The allegations leveled against the petitioners in the present case obviously seems to be without any basis and also the nature of the allegations, the facts and the circumstances in which they came to be made also clearly reveal that the private complaint was filed by the first respondent in retaliation to the act of demolition of the compound wall of his house and as a counterblast to the report lodged by the first petitioners against him. If a case of this nature is allowed to continue and the petitioners are made to face trial of the case, in my considered view it is nothing but abuse of process of court, which this court is under a duty to prevent in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. other wise it will ultimately result in undue hardship to the petitioners, who are discharging official duties now at various places, by virtue of their employment and it will result in miscarriage of justice. I am thoroughly convinced that the complaint filed by the first respondent is false and frivolous which is liable to be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 149 of 2006 on the file of the Court of II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, are quashed. The Criminal Petition is allowed.