Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 578 (AP)

P. Naveen Kumar Reddy v. State of A. P

2024-05-10

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 Petitioner/Accused seeking quashment of proceedings against him in Crime No.100 of 2021 on the file of Tirumala II Town Police Station, Tirupati Urban registered for the offence under Section 505 (1) (b) of the Indian Penal Code[for short ‘IPC’]. 2. The allegations leveled against the Petitioner in the complaint, in brief, are as follows: a. On 02.07.2021, the Petitioner posted a false news in social media through his personal Facebook account and WhatsApp as if a specific authority was appointed by the Government against the procedure and norms and it had taken the hasty decision by handing over the Laddu counters to KVM Infocom by incurring huge expenditure of Rs.5.00 Crores per month, taken a decision to cancel Sarvadarshanam to the pilgrims, inviting VIPs and providing darshan to them and earning money by selling Srivani tickets etc. Except Indian Bank and HDFC Bank, all other banks expressed their inability to run the counters after 31.03.2020, due to which, the-then TTD Board called for tenders in which KVM Infocom was the lower bidder. Indian Bank which was running 12 counters and HDFC bank which was running 4 counters also withdrew their services w.e.f 30.06.2021. b. TTD Board handed over 59 out of 164 Laddu counters to KVM Infocom, which was the least quoted agency, by passing a resolution in February with total expenditure of 23.28 lakhs per month only as an alternative arrangement to run the counters. c. The Petitioner with an intention to harm the reputation of the Specified Authority of TTD and to tarnish the image of TTD, posted the video in his Facebook account and other WhatsApp groups and circulated the false information and rumours with an intention to defame the Specific Authority of TTD and to create suspicion in the minds of pilgrims on the administration of TTD. d. As such, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint against the Petitioner for the offence under Section 505 (1) (b) IPC. Grounds for quashment: 3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him on the following grounds: a. Initial of criminal prosecution against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Grounds for quashment: 3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him on the following grounds: a. Initial of criminal prosecution against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. b. The FIR and the connected material do not make out any prima facie case against the Petitioner. c. There is no intention on the part of the Petitioner to cause fear or alarm to the public. d. Petitioner has expressed his opinion honestly without any intention to create suspicion in the minds of devotees to malign the image and prestige of TTD and the Specified Authority and as such, no criminality can be attributed to him. e. Petitioner posted the news in social media relying on the earlier G.Os, statements of several political leaders including the former Chief Minister and the former Chairman of TTD both in print and electronic media. f. Petitioner being a devotee of Lord Venkateswara Swamy, for the past over 25 years, in the interest of the institution, has been circulating several news in social media and has been filing Public Interest Litigation cases before the High Court. It would indicate his concern to protect the interest of the Institution. g. Learned Magistrate has not followed the procedure contemplated under Law in granting permission to investigate the case. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 and Sri V.R.N.Prashanth, learned Standing Counsel for TTD. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that there is no prima facie case against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 505(1)(b) IPC and moreover the petitioner has no intention to commit the same. It is stated that Police themselves filed a requisition before the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati seeking permission to investigate the case, since it is a non-cognizable offence and the same was allowed. It is pointed out that As per Section 155(2) Cr.P.C, in case of any non-cognizable offence, when any person approached the Police, they have to refer the party to the concerned Magistrate for filing a private complaint. In the present case, Police themselves filed a requisition before the Court, and the same is not tenable. It is pointed out that As per Section 155(2) Cr.P.C, in case of any non-cognizable offence, when any person approached the Police, they have to refer the party to the concerned Magistrate for filing a private complaint. In the present case, Police themselves filed a requisition before the Court, and the same is not tenable. It is also stated that earlier Petitioner filed three writ petitions pointing out some lapses in the administration of TTD and absolutely the Petitioner has no intention to spread any rumours against TTD. 6. Learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent No.2 would submit that the Petitioner made irresponsible allegations against the Complainant. It is stated that Petitioner being a well knowledgeable person having filed several Public Interest Litigations, cannot make allegations of this nature with cruel intention. It is stated that the investigation is at the nascent stage. It is stated that the bonafides on the part of the Petitioner, which were urged, are absent. It is also stated that the Petitioner has been deliberately spreading rumours to create unrest in the minds of the pilgrims. It is submitted that in case of noncognizable offence, filing of requisition by the Police before the Magistrate seeking permission to investigate the case, is valid under law. This question is no more res integra in the light of the judgment of this Court in Sajjal Agarwal Vs. State of A.P. and another 2010 SCC OnLine AP 1312 . 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 proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in Crime No.100 of 2021 on the file of Tirumala II Town Police Station, Tirupati Urban registered for the offence under Section 505 (1) (b) IPC? 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. 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 Cr.P.C. 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. (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. (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. 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. In the present case, it is alleged against the Petitioner that on 02.07.2021, the Petitioner posted false news on social media through his Facebook account and WhatsApp by spreading rumours about the Specified Authority of TTD with an intention to defame them and to create suspicion in the minds of the pilgrims over the administration of TTD. The news was over Specified Authority appointed by the Government, which is contrary to the procedure and norms. The other allegation is that, they have taken hasty decision in allotting Laddu counters to KVN Inforcomm by incurring Rs.5.00 crores of expenditure per month. The other allegation is to the effect that the Specified Authority of TTD was inviting VIPS by cancelling Sarvadarshanam and also earning money by selling Srivani darshan tickets. 11. It is a part of the record that, earlier also the Petitioner filed Public Interest Litigations in W.P.(PIL) Nos.69 and 206 of 2017 and W.P.No.12293 of 2019 before this Court challenging the Government Orders issued relating to the administration of TTD. In those Writ Petitions, the Division Bench of this Court showed indulgence by suspending the said G.Os by issuing certain directions to the Authorities, in the interest of the Institution. There is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that as and when the Petitioner, being the devotee, observed any irregularity, he became the whistle blower by filing Writ Petitions, bringing it to the notice of the Court. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra and another (2007) 5 SCC 1 , Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya and Others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 258 , High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A.B.K.Prasad v. State of A.P., and others 1997 SCC OnLine AP 143 , High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in Mohammad Salim Pandith v. State of J & K and another 2020 SCC OnLine J&K 528. 12. Needless to say, to attract the offence punishable under Section 505 (1) (b) IPC, there must be some allegation that the Petitioner, to cause fear or alarm to the public, has done the alleged act. 12. Needless to say, to attract the offence punishable under Section 505 (1) (b) IPC, there must be some allegation that the Petitioner, to cause fear or alarm to the public, has done the alleged act. It is pertinent to say that, when any individual circulates any news in good faith, without having criminal intention, the said act does not fall under the scope of the offence under Section 505 IPC. 13. It is apposite to extract the comments made by the Petitioner relating to the administration of TTD, which are as follows: 14. A bare perusal of the comments made by the Petitioner would clearly show that there was no intention of the Petitioner to cause fear or alarm to the public or pilgrims or against the public tranquility, to attract the offence under Section 505(1)(b) IPC. In absence of any attempt of the Petitioner in that regard, this Court is of the view that the basic ingredients of Section 505 (1) (b) IPC have not been made out. Where the allegations made in the FIR or the Complaint, even if they are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Petitioner, the FIR is liable to be quashed, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhajanlal’s case (supra). 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that it is a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in the present crime. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. 16. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused in Crime No.100 of 2021 on the file of Tirumala II Town Police Station, Tirupati Urban registered for the offence under Section 505 (1) (b) IPC, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.