Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1426 (AP)

K. Rangappa v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-11-02

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

body2023
JUDGMENT VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J. - The instant petition under Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.[In short 'Cr.P.C'] has been filed by the petitioners/A.1 to A.3, seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.142 of 2019 of Somandepalli Police Station, which was registered against them for the offences punishable under Ss. 420, 355, 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.[In short 'I.P.C.'] and Sec. 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.[In short, Atrocities Act, 1989.] 2. Heard Sri Kata Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor representing the State and the de-facto -Complainant, who is respondent No.2 herein. 3. Case of the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 succinctly is that, a false case was alleged against them in Crime No, .142 of 2019 of Somandepalli P.S., stating that on 27/12/2019, they took an amount of Rs.4, 00, 000.00 from the de-facto Complainant by offering a job to his son, but failed to provide any job. The de-facto Complainant and his wife approached the Petitioner No.1 and questioned him, then the Petitioner Nos., 1 to 3 beat him with Chappals and abused them touching by their caste and there is life threat from the petitioners. Basing on the above written report, case has been lodged against the Petitioners 1 to 3, for the offences referred supra. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioners and the de-facto Complainant and some others were cheated in the hands of one Wilson, against whom, Petitioner No.1 lodged a case, which is registered as Cr.No.14 of 2018 dated 5/2/2018. He would hence submit that the present case is a false one and deserves quashment. 5. Per contra, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor would submit that the allegations made in the written report submitted by the de-facto Complainant require investigation, and at this stage Court cannot say it is true or false. He would submit that since prima facie allegations are made out against the petitioners, this petition warrants dismissal. 6. Having heard the submissions of both the learned counsel, this Court has perused the material available on record. The point that would arise for determination is; "Whether the case against the Petitioners is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C.?" Determination by the Court 7. 6. Having heard the submissions of both the learned counsel, this Court has perused the material available on record. The point that would arise for determination is; "Whether the case against the Petitioners is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C.?" Determination by the Court 7. Before delving into the instant case, it is appropriate to chalk out certain settled principles of law in the exercise of jurisdiction under Sec. 482, which reads as follows; Sec. 482- Saving of inherent powers of High Court "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." 8. The idea behind conferring inherent power to the High Court to is to meet exigencies that may likely arise where the Cr.P.C. fails to provide a specific provision, for a given issue. To put it differently, no legislative enactment can be so complete a package to deal with the procedure concerning all causes that are likely to arise. It is for this reason that the Courts have certain inherent powers, in addition to the ones that are expressed by law, for the proper discharge of their functions and effective administration of justice. 9. Inherent powers, are as the word suggests, are inalienably present in the Court. They are not conferred, but are merely safeguarded and preserved by provision under Sec. 482 to the High Court. Once a Court, be it civil or criminal is required to administer justice, it becomes inherently essential to have the necessary powers to perform such functions, vide "quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest" (when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which it may not exist.). Once a Court, be it civil or criminal is required to administer justice, it becomes inherently essential to have the necessary powers to perform such functions, vide "quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest" (when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which it may not exist.). Explaining this maxim, Halsbury's Laws of India (Criminal Procedure)provides the following; [Halsbury's Laws of India (Criminal Procedure, Vol 12(1)) 2nd Edition] "It is a well established principle that whenever anything is required to be done by law, and it is found impossible to do that thing unless something not authorised in express terms be also done, then thatsomething else will be supplied by necessary intendment and this is a principle of the common law embodiedin the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa non potest" 10. A bare perusal of Sec. 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 Sec. 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. The powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 11. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC. is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Sec. 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows; "102. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC. is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Sec. 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows; "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Sec. 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Sec. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Sec. 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 FIR 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 Sec. 155(2) of the Code. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR 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 Sec. 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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." (emphasis supplied) 12. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre., (1988) 1 SCC 692 . held 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. 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 utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are 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." (emphasis supplied) 13. While reiterating the position of law laid down by a catena of decisions, the Apex Court in Ramveer Upadhyay and Another v. State of U.P. and Another held that Sec. 482 is designed so as to ensure that criminal proceedings are not used as weapons of harassment by complainants. The Court further held as follows; "39. In our considered opinion criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. As observed above, the possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after closure of the earlier criminal case cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Attrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence." (emphasis supplied) 14. A three- Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others, summarized the law of invocation on inherent powers in the following terms; "57. A three- Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others, summarized the law of invocation on inherent powers in the following terms; "57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the rarest of rare cases". (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR." (emphasis supplied) 15. In Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 603. having expounded the law on the point, specifically referred to the position concerning quashes in relation to Atrocities Act, in the following terms; "34. In Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 603. having expounded the law on the point, specifically referred to the position concerning quashes in relation to Atrocities Act, in the following terms; "34. Insofar and inasmuch as interference in cases involving the SC/ST Act is concerned, we may only point out that a 3- Judge Bench of this Court, in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966, has held that the mere fact that the offence is covered under a special statute" would not inhibit this Court or the High Court from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Sec. 482 of the Code, in the terms below: "15. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The SC/ST Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper-castes. The Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the SC/ST Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities. 16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily civil or private where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the SC/ST Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a special statute" would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Sec. 482 Cr. P.C." (emphasis supplied) 16. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel representing both the parties and on perusal of the written report submitted by the de-facto Complainant, as rightly argued by learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, there are prima facie allegations made against the petitioners herein, which need investigation to decide their veracity. Truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation, cannot be addressed to by this court. It cannot either screen or assess the material on record at this stage like a mini trial to conclude that the accusation fails. 17. A bare perusal of the report shows the allegations against the petitioners require investigation, before any decision as to their veracity is taken. Hence, it is not appropriate to intervene at this Stage. Petitioners lodging a case against Wilson on 5/2/2018, cannot be taken as consideration, for quashing the present case lodged against them. F.I.R is not be all and all and the statements before the police, de-facto Complainant and witnesses may tell something and they state before the Court in evidence about the details of the abusive language and how the incident occurred. The F.I.R.No.142 of 2019 is not such a case that should be quashed at the inception itself. Hence, it is apposite to dismiss this petition. 18. Resultantly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.