Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 344 (AP)

Chalasani Ajay Kumar v. State Of A. P.

2025-02-24

V.SUJATHA

body2025
ORDER : These Criminal Petitions are filed by different petitioners under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in FIR.No.10 of 2020, dated 12.02.2020 on the file of Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada. Hence I feel it appropriate to decide both the cases by way of this common order. 2. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.225 of 2020 is accused No.1 and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.226 of 2020 is accused No.4. The 2 nd respondent herein is the defacto complainant. The 2 nd respondent has submitted a complaint dated 12.01.2020 to the Station House Officer, Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada stating that he is a working president of City Police Officers Association. As the residents of Amaravati, with the support of the political parties have conducted a rastha roko on 10.01.2020 at 03.00 p.m., at Bundar road, Vijayawada city with huge gathering of more than 2000 to 3000 women without permission of the Police, the Police have obstructed and tried to prevent them, but, as they have abused the Police, the Police took them into custody and shifted them to Police Station. It is further stated that the accused have morphed a photo of a female Police who was discharging her duties preventing a female protestor to that of a male police preventing the female protestor. The accused are alleged to have deliberately posted the morphed photo in facebook on 10.01.2020 with an intention to instigate the protestors and provoke them to take revenge against the Government and as well as the Police, thereby causing law and order problem. Stating thus, the 2 nd respondent requested the Police to take action against the accused, pursuant to which, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.10 of 2020 on the file of Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada city under Sections 469, 505(2) read with Section 34 of IPC. Requesting to quash the aforesaid case, the petitioners have filed the present petitions. 3. When these criminal petitions came up for hearing on 20.01.2020, this Court has granted an interim stay of the proceedings in FIR.No. 10 of 2020 on the file of Suryaraopet Police Station, Krishna District. 4. During the course of arguments, Sri. Ganta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that none of the allegations made in the FIR constitute any offences punishable under Sections 469, 505(2) read with 34 IPC. 4. During the course of arguments, Sri. Ganta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that none of the allegations made in the FIR constitute any offences punishable under Sections 469, 505(2) read with 34 IPC. The allegation made against the petitioners under Section 469 of IPC pertains to ‘forgery for the purpose of harming reputation’ and a bear perusal of the definition of ‘forgery’ defined under Section 463 of IPC would show that the petitioners do not have any intent to cause damage or injury either to public in general or to any person in particular. There was no intention on behalf of the petitioners to harm the reputation of any party and there is no material in support of any violence breaking out because of the alleged act. Relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Binu K. Sam Vs. State of Kerala and others ( Crl.M.C.No.1382 of 2016, dated 09.04.2021 ), learned Senior Counsel submitted that the intention to harm the reputation of a party by forgery is a sine qua non for attracting Section 469 of IPC. As no complainant has come forward alleging that the forgery by the petitioner has harmed reputation of any of the party or person, the ingredients of Section 469 are not applicable. 5. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence punishable under Section 502(2) of IPC which pertains to statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes. To constitute an offence punishable under Section 505(2) of IPC, there must be any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill- will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities. As such, in order to constitute an offence punishable under the aforesaid section, there must be two groups or classes belonging to two different castes, religions or communities. In the case on hand, there are no two groups or classes and even the Government or Police cannot be construed as one group. In such absence, the question of commission of offence under Section 505(2) does not arise. In the case on hand, there are no two groups or classes and even the Government or Police cannot be construed as one group. In such absence, the question of commission of offence under Section 505(2) does not arise. In such case, continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of court, therefore the same is liable to be quashed. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioners herein, morphed an original photo wherein a female police was discharging her duties while preventing another female protestor as if a male police is preventing the female protestor and have posted the same in Facebook with an intention to instigate the protestors. As such, the allegations levelled against the petitioners would constitute offence punishable under Sections 469, 505(2) read with Section 34 of IPC, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petitions. 7 . Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the proceedings against the petitioners in FIR.No.10 of 2020, dated 12.02.2020 on the file of Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada City, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 8. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 9. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows: In “ R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab , [1 AIR 1960 SC 866 ] ”, the Apex Court laid down the following principles: (i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice; (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 10. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 . It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “ Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar , [ AIR 1990 SC 494 ] ” 11. In “ State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , [ 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 ] ” the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: (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 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. (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. 12. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 13. The petitioners are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 469, 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, which are extracted hereunder for better understanding: “ 469. Forgery for purpose of harming reputation . Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall harm the reputation of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. 505. Statements conducing to public mischief. (2)Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.— Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different reli-gious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 14. The term ‘Forgery’ is defined under Section 463 of IPC and is extracted hereunder: “463. Forgery.— Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.” 15. As prescribed under Section 463, it is clear that a person who makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document with an intention to cause damage to the public or to any person, or to enter into any express or implied contract or with an intention to commit fraud is said to have committed forgery. In the case on hand, prima facie, this Court finds that there is no intention on the part of the petitioner to cause damage or injury either to public in general or to any person in particular. In Binu K. Sam Vs. State of Kerala and others ( Crl.M.C.No.1382 of 2016, dated 09.04.2021 ) relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with Section 469 IPC held as under: “ 14 . On analyzing Section 469 it could be seen that in order to attract the offence there should be forgery intending that the document or electronic record forged shall harm the reputation of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose. So intention to harm the reputation of a party by creating forgery is a sine qua non for attracting Section 469. Committing forgery alone, no doubt, will not attract an offences u/s. 469. Apart from forgery there should be an intention that the document forged should harm the reputation of any party or there should be a knowledge that the forged document would likely to be used for harming the reputation of a party.” Applying the said principle to the present facts of the case, it can be said that the petitioners have not committed any offence punishable under Section 469 of IPC prima facie. 16. 16. So far as the other allegation that the petitioner has committed offence punishable under Section 505(2) of IPC is concerned, it must be emphasized that there should be a statement or report containing rumors or alarming news with the intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, community, or any other grounds. To constitute an offense punishable under the aforesaid section, there must be two distinct groups or classes belonging to different castes, religions, or communities. In the case at hand, no such two groups or classes exist. Furthermore, the Government or the Police cannot be considered as a group in this context. Therefore, the necessary ingredients for the offence under the Section 505(2) are not made out. 17. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that if the criminal proceedings are continued against the petitioners herein, it would amount to abuse of process of law. Even as per the principle No.1 of the principles laid down in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (1 st Supra) if continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice, the Court can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. Applying the said principle to the present facts of the case and keeping in view the above discussion, I find that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. 18. In the result, the criminal petitions are allowed and the proceedings in FIR.No.10 of 2020, dated 12.02.2020 on the file of Suryaraopet Police Station, Krishna District are hereby quashed in so far as the petitioners i.e. accused Nos.1 and 4 are concerned. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.