Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 21 (AP)

B. Chakravarti v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2020-01-21

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT : U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J. 1. In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. petitioner/accused seeks to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No. 303/2019 of Kurnool III Town Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 506, 509 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). Investigation is reported to be pending. 2. The defacto complainant is the wife of S. Naganna Naik and they are residents of Kurnool. The complaint allegations are that on 11.09.2019 in the evening at about 7:00 P.M., the accused made a phone call through phone No. 7780509636 to complainant's phone No. 7095100659 and informed that he was an employee of Shriram Finance and enquired about her husband. When she stated that he went out on a work, the accused instructed her to inform her husband that he has to pay the loan amount to the Finance company. When the complainant pleaded her ignorance about the loan transaction, the accused allegedly spoken a vulgar language and threatened her that they would kill her husband. He also allegedly abused her. Hence the complaint. 3. Heard Sri. Sai Sanjay Suraneni, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 4. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the complaint allegations are false to the Court and complaint was lodged only to implicate the accused and thereby to avoid payment of the loan. It is further argued that even all the complaint allegations are taken to be true, they do not attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 506, 509 of IPC as those allegations do not contain the criminal intimidation or outraging the modesty of the complainant. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. 6. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the criminal petition to allow? 7. It should be noted in the decision State of Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, (1992) AIR SC 604, the Apex Court has laid down the following guidelines as to when the High Court can exercise its plenary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the Court. They are: “1. Bhajan Lal and Others, (1992) AIR SC 604, the Apex Court has laid down the following guidelines as to when the High Court can exercise its plenary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the Court. They are: “1. Where 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. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted 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. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. As can be seen from the above guidelines, an FIR can be quashed even if the allegations in the complaint were accepted to be true and they do not constitute any offence. As can be seen from the above guidelines, an FIR can be quashed even if the allegations in the complaint were accepted to be true and they do not constitute any offence. Applying the above ratio, in the instant case, the allegations levelled against the accused if uncontroverted would prima-facie amount to an offence, for which he is charged. Of course, the truth and veracity of the complaint allegations can be known only after a thorough investigation. As the matter stands in view of the complaint allegations, depicting strong prima-facie case against the petitioner, the investigation cannot be stifled by quashing the proceedings. Therefore, investigation must be proceeded with to lead its logical conclusion. 9. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed, however, having regard to the fact that the offences under Sections 506, 509 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 alleged against the petitioner are amenable to Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. the investigating agency is directed to strictly follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and the guidelines rendered by Hon'ble apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 5 SCC 324 during course of investigation. 10. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending if any, shall stand closed.