Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 527 (AP)

Sheik Jamal Basha v. State Of A P

2024-05-07

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

body2024
ORDER : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioners/Respondents/ Accused Nos.1 to 8, seeking quashment of the Order dated 10.03.2021 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.10 of 2018 on the file of the Court of VII Additional Sessions Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. 2. The facts that led to filing of the present petition, in brief, are as follows: a. Respondent No.2 herein filed a private complaint before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet in C.F.R.No.2445 of 2017 and after recording the sworn statements of L.Ws.1 to 4, learned Magistrate dismissed the private complaint filed by Respondent No.2 vide order dated 06.01.2018 on the ground that no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners to issue process against them. b. Being aggrieved by the Order passed by the learned Magistrate, Respondent No.2 preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.10 of 2018 before the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guduru. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition vide Order dated 10.03.2021 setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing him to take the complaint on file for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379, 427, 506 (ii) and 452 IPC. Grounds Sought for Quashment 3. Impugning the Order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.10 of 2018, the Petitioners/Respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 8 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the said Order on the following grounds: a. The order of reversing the dismissal of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2, is illegal, improper and incorrect. b. Even if the entire allegations are taken in its entirety, they do not constitute any offence much less the alleged offences against the Petitioners herein. c. The learned Sessions Judge should have seen that the contents of the private complaint clearly which show that it is a civil litigation which was coloured as a criminal offence. d. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have seen that the Petitioners never entered into any sale agreement with Respondent No.2 and his men and none of the documents are filed by Respondent No.2 to show that the Petitioners have come along with one Venkatanarayana at the time of payment made by Respondent No.2. d. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have seen that the Petitioners never entered into any sale agreement with Respondent No.2 and his men and none of the documents are filed by Respondent No.2 to show that the Petitioners have come along with one Venkatanarayana at the time of payment made by Respondent No.2. e. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have seen that the complaint as well as the statements of the witnesses do not disclose about the date of alleged attack by the Petitioners on Respondent No.2 and in whose presence it was done. f. The learned Sessions Judge should have seen that discretion was given to the learned Magistrate when he received the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C and the revision scope is very limited to reverse the Order passed by the learned Magistrate. g. Initiation of proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri Eerla Sateesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 and Sri Prudvi Raju Mudunuri, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition, would submit that after recording the sworn statements of the complainant and the witnesses, and on appreciation of the material on record, the learned Magistrate rightly dismissed the complaint. It is also stated that the complainant carried the matter in revision before the Sessions Court, wherein the dismissal order was reversed and a direction was given to the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 379, 427, 506 (ii) and 452 IPC. Learned counsel further submits that a revisional court is not supposed to re-appreciate the evidence. Therefore, the Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge suffers from illegality and prays to set aside the said Order. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishnan and another v. Krishnaveni and another (1997) 4 SCC 241 , Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and Another (2009) 8 SCC 751 and Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat and Others (2011) 7 SCC 59 . 6. 6. Refuting the same, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in unison, would submit that, the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable against the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge. It is also stated that the learned Sessions Judge has well scrutinized the order passed by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the same, which does not warrant interference of this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the impugned Order dated 10.03.2021 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.10 of 2018 on the file of the Court of VII Additional Sessions Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District ? 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. Perusal of the record would go to show that Respondent No.2 herein filed a private complaint against the Petitioners herein for the offences under Sections 120B, 327, 341, 352, 356, 379, 414, 418, 427, 453, 468, 474 and 506 (ii) of IPC vide C.F.R.No.2445 of 2017 on the file of the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpeta and the learned Magistrate by an Order dated 06.01.2018 has dismissed the complaint on the ground that there is a civil litigation between the parties and it was unsafe to proceed with the case which was filed based on the bald allegations. 10. 10. Impugning the said Order, Respondent No.2 herein filed Criminal Revision Petition No.10 of 2018 before the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Gudur and the learned Sessions Judge disposed of the Criminal Revision setting aside the Order passed by the learned Magistrate directing him to take the complaint on file for the offences under Sections 323, 379, 427, 452 and 506 (ii) of IPC against the Accused. The entire order of the learned Sessions Judge goes to show that it is reiteration of the contentions of both parties and extraction of the legal positions. The contribution of the learned Sessions Judge to the impugned Order is as follows: “Taking into consideration the complaint and the sworn statements of P.W.1 to P.W.4 taken on oath, prima facie case is there against the accused (A1 to A8) for the offences u/s.323, 379, 427, 506 (ii) and 452 IPC. As such the order regarding dismissal of the complaint requires interference by this court and the order of the trial court dated 06.01.2018 can be set aside and consequently, the complaint can be restored to file to that effect party. The point is answered accordingly.” 11. Time and again, it is being reiterated by this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court that the criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law and before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution and care. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is devoid of any reasons from the face of record. 12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable against the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge. However, it is well-settled that inherent power of the High Court is still available under Section 482 Cr.P.C and as it is a paramount power of continuous superintendence of the High Court under Section 483 of Cr.P.C., the High Court can interfere with the order leading to miscarriage of justice and in setting aside the order passed by the Courts below. Jurisdiction conferred to the High Court under Section 482 has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In that view, the contention of the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 is not tenable. Jurisdiction conferred to the High Court under Section 482 has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In that view, the contention of the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 is not tenable. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 10.03.2021 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.10 of 2018 by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. The matter is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge for fresh consideration. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.