Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 174 (AP)

Nagineni Nageswar Rao v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-02-01

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

body2024
ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[For short “Cr.P.C”] has been filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7, 11 and 12 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.122 of 2019 on the file of the Mannur Police Station, Rajampet Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, which was registered for the offences punishable under Section 323 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code[For short “I.P.C”], Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,[For short “the Act”] and Section 132(3) of the Representation of the People Act. 2. The allegations mentioned in the complaint, in brief, are as follows: a. On 11.04.2019 at 3.00 p.m., while Respondent No.2 was acting as a Polling Agent of YSR Congress Party and the polling was going on, petitioners herein along with other accused came to the polling booth and abused him in the name of his caste stating that “Emira Mala Naa Kodaka, inthamandi kamma vaalla madhyalo neevu agent ga nilabadathava, ninnu road meeda vesi narikithe evaru addam vastharu”. Saying so, they attacked him with rods. When Respondent No.2 raised cries, Respondent No.3 who came for his rescue and was beaten by the accused. As such, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 lodged a complaint before the Police and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.122 of 2019 for the above said offences. Grounds Sought for Quashment 3. Aggrieved by the registration of the said crime, Petitioners herein filed the present petition for quashment of the proceedings against them on the following grounds: a. All the petitioners are no way concerned with the incident and they were falsely implicated due to political rivalry. No such incident occurred as stated by the de facto complainant. b. The alleged offence took place on 11.04.2019, but the case has been registered on 13.04.2019, which clearly establishes that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. c. The allegations mentioned in the complaint do not disclose any prima facie case against the petitioners. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri K.Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent No.1. Inspite of sufficient opportunity, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not turn up to submit arguments. 5. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri K.Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent No.1. Inspite of sufficient opportunity, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not turn up to submit arguments. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7, 11 and 12 would submit that a false case has been registered against the petitioners. He would point out that the de facto complainant submitted a report on 13.04.2019 at 12.00 p.m., saying that the incident occurred on 11.04.2019 at 3.00 p.m. while he was sitting as Polling Agent of YSR Congress Party at the polling booth. Learned counsel would thus stare that there is a delay of two days in giving report to the Police. He would further submit that Petitioners are no way concerned with the incident and no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, and only due to political vengeance, the present complaint has been lodged. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law. 6. Refuting the above contentions, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the contentions raised by the petitioners are touching the question of fact and that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. It is also stated that the Respondent No.2 was attacked by the petitioners while he was attending his work as a Polling Agent and he was abused in the name of his caste. It is thus stated that the matter needs investigation. There are absolutely no grounds to quash the case against the petitioners. Point for Determination 7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7, 11 and 12 in Crime No.122 of 2019 on the file of the Mannur Police Station, Rajampet Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, for the alleged offences? Determination by the Court 8. Determination by the Court 8. A bare perusal of Section 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 Section 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. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 9. 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, AIR 1992 SC 604 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 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 Section 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. (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 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 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 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. 103. (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) 10. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of Hon”ble Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 469, wherein on “public view”, it was held as follows: “17. The first question that calls for an answer is whether it was at a place within public view that the appellant hurled caste related abuses at the complainant with an intent to insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate him. From the charge-sheet dated 21st January, 2016 filed by the I.O., it appears that the prosecution would seek to rely on the evidence of three witnesses to drive home the charge against the appellant of committing offences under sections 323 and 504, IPC and 3(1)(x), SC/ST Act. These three witnesses are none other than the complainant, his wife and their son. Neither the first F.I.R. nor the charge-sheet refers to the presence of a fifth individual (a member of the public) at the place of occurrence (apart from the appellant, the complainant, his wife and their son).Since the utterances, if any, made by the appellant were not “in any place within public view”, the basic ingredient for attracting section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was missing/absent. We, therefore, hold that at the relevant point of time of the incident (of hurling of caste related abuse at the complainant by the appellant), no member of the public was present.” (emphasis supplied) 11. We, therefore, hold that at the relevant point of time of the incident (of hurling of caste related abuse at the complainant by the appellant), no member of the public was present.” (emphasis supplied) 11. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of the then Composite High Court in Gara Yesobu v. State of A.P., 2005 (1) ALT (Crl.) 213 (AP), wherein, it was held as follows: "As rightly contended by Sri E.V.Bhagiratha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No. 3342 of 2005 (i.e., A63 to A.66) the charge is bald and does not state who among the 66 persons named as accused uttered the offending words or which of the accused said what words and/or their overt acts. A plain reading of the charge sheet shows that all the accused abused the alleged Victims. As rightly contended by the learned counsel, it is not possible to believe that all the accused, in chorus could have uttered the same words at the same time. So prima facie prosecution for an offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act is an abuse of process of law." (emphasis supplied) 12. A fair look at the complaint would disclose that the alleged incident occurred on 11.04.2019 at 3.00 p.m., whereas, the complaint was lodged on 13.04.2019, as such, there is a delay of two days in lodging the report before the Police. No reason for the said delay was offered by the de facto complainant. Further, it is alleged in the complaint that petitioners tried to attack Respondent No.1 with rods and when he raised cries, Respondent No.3 came for his rescue and then all the accused beat Respondent Nos.2 and 3. But, perusal of the record shows that no medical certificate is filed to prove the injuries sustained by them in the hands of the petitioners. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed the offence under Section 323 IPC. 13. As far as the offences punishable under Section 3(1) (r) & (s) of the Act are concerned, it is alleged that the petitioners along with other accused abused Respondent No.2 in the name of his caste. However, it is not the case of Respondent No.2 that the accused abused him in the name of his caste outside the Polling Booth. As far as the offences punishable under Section 3(1) (r) & (s) of the Act are concerned, it is alleged that the petitioners along with other accused abused Respondent No.2 in the name of his caste. However, it is not the case of Respondent No.2 that the accused abused him in the name of his caste outside the Polling Booth. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused abused Respondent No.2 by touching his caste within public view. Further, the complaint does not disclose as to who among the accused uttered the offending words or which of the accused said what words and/or their overt acts. Therefore, it is not possible to believe that all the accused, in chorus could have uttered the same words at the same time. The judgment of this Court in Gara Yesobu’s case (supra), is squarely applicable to the present case with regard to the offence under Section 3(1) (r) (s) of the Act. Therefore, in that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the offence under Section 3(1) (r) (s) of the Act does not prima facie attract against the petitioners. 14. Furthermore, with regard to the offence under Section 132(3) of the Representation of People Act, there is no iota of evidence to show that the petitioners have been removed from the polling station and they re-entered without the permission of the presiding officer. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners with regard to the commission of the said offence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that based on the false and omnibus allegations, the present complaint was lodged against the petitioners and there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioners. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the light of the above referred judgments, this Court is of the view that, it is a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in the above crime. 16. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the light of the above referred judgments, this Court is of the view that, it is a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in the above crime. 16. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7, 11 and 12 in Crime No.122 of 2019 on the file of the Mannur Police Station, Rajampet Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, for the offences punishable under Section 323 read with 34 of IPC, Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and Section 132(3) of the Representation of the People Act, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.