Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 712 (AP)

D. Shafiulla v. State of A. P.

2024-06-27

V.SUJATHA

body2024
ORDER : V. Sujatha, J. The present Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.319 of 2018 of Gooty Police Station, Ananthapuram District. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the accused No.3 in FIR No.319 of 2018 of Gooty Police Station, Ananthapuram District, which was registered against the petitioner and two others, for the offences punishable under Section 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)and (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Act, basing on a complaint said to have been lodged by the 2nd respondent/ defacto complainant. The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the same against the petitioner. 3. The allegation against the accused as per the contents of the complaint is that the 2nd respondent is working as Manager in Sevaghad Sant Sri Senal Maharaj and Jagadamba Matha Temple and on 01.12.2018 at about 12.00 noon at Sevaghad, Cherlopalli village, Gooty Mandal, the accused-Basheer Ahammad and Issaq were working in the land, which was agreed to be purchased by the Trust of the said temple, the 2nd respondent/complainant went there and asked them as to why they are doing the work in the land belongs to Trust, as such asked them not to work there. On that, said Basheer and Issac/accused No.1 and 2 abused the 2nd respondent/complainant touching his caste name as "Sugali Na Kodaka" and said Issac has made a phone call to their Advocate i.e., Shafiulla/petitioner herein, who threatened him on phone with dire consequences. This is due to the land dispute exited between the accused and the complainant Trust. 4. At the time of admission, on 27.03.2019 this Court passed interim stay of all further proceedings with regard to the petitioner is concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner herein in the complaint, to attract the provisions under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Act, [for short "the Act"] except stating that the petitioner has threatened the 2nd respondent/complainant over phone. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner herein in the complaint, to attract the provisions under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Act, [for short "the Act"] except stating that the petitioner has threatened the 2nd respondent/complainant over phone. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has produced the instructions wherein it is stated that during the course of investigation on 02.12.2016 the investigation officer has examined LWs.1 and 3 and identified total 03 persons accused involved in this case by names, Syed Abdul Basher @ Basheer Ahamed, M.D. Issaq and M. Dudekula Shaffulla, who is the petitioner herein. The investigation officer after serving notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused /A1 to A3, filed charge sheet against the accused A1 an A2. However, in view of interim orders passed by this Court on 27.03.2019, A3 could not be charge sheeted. At present the case is numbered as SC.No.105 of 2022 on the file of the Special SC/ST Court, Ananthapuramu and the proceedings are going on against A1 and A2. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Perused the material on record. 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. 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. 9. 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. (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. (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. 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) 11. Section 482 is designed so as to ensure that criminal proceedings are not used as weapons of harassment by complainants. In Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows; “46. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the statute itself and in the aforementioned cases” (emphasis supplied) 12. The allegations as per the contents of the complaint are that the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is working as a Manager in Sevaghad Sant Sri Senal Maharaj and Jagadamba Matha Temple. On 01.12.2018 at about 12.00 noon at Sevaghad, Cerhlopalli village, Gooty Mandal, one Basheer Ahammad and his engineer one Issaq were doing work in the land, which was agreed to be sold to the Trust of the said temple, as per the instructions of the Trust members, the 2nd respondent along with one Maruthi Prasad and one Veeranjaneyulu of Cherlopalli village went there and informed them that the Board of the Trust had purchased the land from one Lakshminarayana and an amount of Rupees Five lakhs was given as advance, but without their notice the land was sold to others. The 2nd respondent also informed that till their Trust members came and conduct Panchayat, they have to stop the works. On that, said Basheer and Issaq abused the 2nd respondent by naming his caste as Sugali. In the meanwhile, Issaq also made a phone call to their advocate Shafiulla/ who is the petitioner herein, and gave phone to the petitioner. On that the petitioner threatened the 2nd respondent to lodge criminal cases against the petitioner if the petitioner interfered with the land. Then the petitioner informed the same to the Trust and on their instructions, lodged the present complaint at Gooty Police Station. 13. For better appreciation, Section 506 of IPC as well as Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Act [for short the Act] are extracted hereunder : “506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.— Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.— And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.” “503. Criminal intimidation.—Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.—A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.” A reading of evidence on record in the light of aforesaid legal provision shows the insufficiency of evidence to hold the conviction of the appellant for the offence of criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 part I of IPC. 14. 14. Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Act reads as under : Section 3(1) – '(1) whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe - (r) intentionally insults or intimidates with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view: (s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.' 15. In the instant case, a plain reading of the complaint, prima facie it can be seen that except stating that the petitioner/Accused No.3 has threatened the defacto complainant over phone with dire consequences, if he interferes into the land issue, there is no other serious allegations against the petitioner herein that he caused criminal intimidation to attract the provisions under Section 506 of IPC and as well as Sections3(1)(r) and (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Act. 16. Even as per the averments made in the complaint, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner herein that the petitioner abused the 2nd respondent in the name of his caste, except stating that the petitioner threatened the 2nd respondent over phone. However, it is not the case of 2nd respondent that the petitioner abused him in the name of his caste within public view, which is the essential ingredient to prove the alleged offence punishable under Section 3(1) (r) (s) of the Act. 17. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that based on the false allegations, the present complaint was lodged against the petitioner also and there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioner. In the absence of any material against the petitioner herein, and 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 the FIR against the petitioner herein/Accused No.3 in the present crime. 18. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the F.I.R. No.319 of 2018 on the file of Gooty Police Station, Ananthapuram District is hereby quashed against the petitioner herein. 18. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the F.I.R. No.319 of 2018 on the file of Gooty Police Station, Ananthapuram District is hereby quashed against the petitioner herein. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.