Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 66 (AP)

Shaik Chand Basha v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-01-12

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

body2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed, by the petitioner/A2, seeking quashment of proceedings in Crime No.253 of 2020 on the file of Podili Police Station, Prakasam District, which was registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'I.P.C.'). 2. The facts which led to the filing of this petition are: (a) It is the case of the de facto complainant that she is a resident of Podili Village. Petitioner/A2, who is a resident of 21st Ward, Sultan Mohiddin Nagar, Kandukuru, is a Government Kazi. Petitioner/A2 having obtained money from Pathan Fayaz Khan/husband of the de facto complainant, without her knowledge and consent, illegally prepared Talaqnama, basing on which the name of the de facto complainant was removed from the Service Register of her husband, who is working in Army. Due to the said act, the de facto complainant has been suffering a lot both physically and mentally. (b) The de facto complainant lodged a report against the accused, based on which a case in Crime No.253 of 2020 for the offence under Section 420 IPC was registered by Podili Police, Prakasam District. This Crime is sought to be quashed in the present petition. Hence Crl.P. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 3. Heard Sri S.A. Razak, learned Counsel for petitioner, and Ms. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent No.1. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that no prima facie case for the offence alleged is made out against the petitioner/A2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner/A2. He would further submit that initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/A2 is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case to bring him to the terms of the de-facto complainant. Further, it is contended that no specific overt acts are attributed against the petitioner to attract the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. 5. Refuting the arguments referred to above, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are no grounds to quash the case against petitioner/A2. Further, it is contended that no specific overt acts are attributed against the petitioner to attract the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. 5. Refuting the arguments referred to above, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are no grounds to quash the case against petitioner/A2. She would submit that the allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint would squarely attract the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and therefore, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed against petitioner/A2. 6. 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 the proceedings against the petitioner/A2 in Crime No.253 of 2020 on the file of Podili Police Station, Prakasam District are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.? Determination by the Court 7. 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 Section 482 to the High Court. 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 must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 8. Specific circumstances warranting invocation of powers under Section 482 have been strongly emphasized in a catena of decisions. To cite a few, State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 at Paras 102 and 103; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 10 SCC 180, at Para 57. The limited question that is to be answered is "whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence or not." 9. (1) SCC 335 at Paras 102 and 103; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 10 SCC 180, at Para 57. The limited question that is to be answered is "whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence or not." 9. A three-Judges 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. 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). 10. Perusal of the record shows that the marriage between respondent No.2 was performed with accused No.1. Subsequently, in view of the disputes between them and after exchange of notices, accused No.1 had pronounced Talaq on 28.07.2014. The divorce/Talaq was materialized and the marriage tie between them ended. The present complaint was filed by respondent after lapse of nearly 6-1/2 years from the date of Talaq alleging that the petitioner/accused No.2 by obtaining money from accused No.1 had issued Talaqnama, without her consent and knowledge. But, the said Talaq was not questioned by respondent No.2. Petitioner/accused No.2 is a Government Kazi and he discharged his duty as such. Further, after issuance of divorce certificate, respondent No.2 had filed a maintenance case MC No.23 of 2014 before learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class and maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month was also granted to her vide order dated 08.07.2016. Therefore, the contention of respondent No.2 that she does not have knowledge about the said Talaqnama, is not tenable. Further, after issuance of divorce certificate, respondent No.2 had filed a maintenance case MC No.23 of 2014 before learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class and maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month was also granted to her vide order dated 08.07.2016. Therefore, the contention of respondent No.2 that she does not have knowledge about the said Talaqnama, is not tenable. The further allegation that petitioner/accused No.2 by obtaining money from accused No.1 had issued Talaqnama is baseless. No prima facie offence is made out against the petitioner/accused No.2. 11. Therefore, in view of the Guideline No.1 in Bhajanlal's case (supra), since the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the petitioner/A2, the criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner/A2 are liable to be quashed. This Court finds that there are justifiable grounds to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, as the very ingredients of the offending section are not attracted, prosecution initiated against the petitioner/A2 is untenable and is liable to be quashed. 12. In result, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.253 of 2020 on the file of Podili Police Station, Prakasam District registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C., are hereby quashed. 13. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.