Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 45 (AP)

T. Manirajulu v. State of AP

2025-01-06

V.SUJATHA

body2025
ORDER : V.Sujatha, J. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in FIR.No.139 of 2019, on the file of Tirupathi West Police Station, Tirupati Urban District for the offences punishable under Sections 354 D1 (ii) r/w 34 IPC and under Section 67 ITA 2000-2008. 2. The petitioner herein is the accused No.2 and the respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant. The de-facto complainant had lodged a complaint before the Tirupathi West Police Station stating that the marriage of the daughter of the respondent No.2 namely Smt. D.Revathi with Mr. T.Arun Kumar/accused No.1 has been performed on 16.02.2017 as per Hindu rites and customs. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between them, the accused No.1 has filed H.M.O.P.No.38 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor seeking dissolution of marriage and daughter of the complainant has filed a domestic violence case against the 1 st accused and his family members. Subsequently, at the instance of mediators and well wishers, the matter has been settled between the parties before Lok Adalath at Tirupati and on 15.12.2018 an award was passed by the Lok Adalath under section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act , 1987, pursuant to which the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, by an order dated 06.06.2019, has allowed the H.M.O.P., filed by the accused No.1 and the accused No.1 had paid an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the daughter of the respondent No.2, towards full and final settlement and the same was also recorded in the award dated 15.12.2018 passed by the Lok Adalath. 3. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 has lodged the present complaint alleging that at the instigation of the petitioner/accused No.2, the accused No.1 has been sending private photographs of the daughter of the respondent No.2 and also making vulgar comments against her through Face Book Messenger. Basing on the said complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant, the Police had registered a case against the accused vide FIR No.139 of 2019. The present petition has been filed to quash the said FIR.No.139 of 2019. 4. When the petition came up for admission on 14.10.2019, this court has granted interim stay initially for a period of two weeks, which was subsequently extended from time to time. 5. The present petition has been filed to quash the said FIR.No.139 of 2019. 4. When the petition came up for admission on 14.10.2019, this court has granted interim stay initially for a period of two weeks, which was subsequently extended from time to time. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 while reiterating contentions raised in the petition has further contended that the in order to live a peaceful life, the petitioner and the accused No.1 have settled the matter pending before the trial Court by making payment of Rs.12,00,000/- in favour of the daughter of the de-facto complainant towards full and final settlement. But the de-facto complainant with an illegal intention to extract excess amount from the petitioner and his son, had lodged the present complaint with an allegation that at the instigation of the petitioner, the accused No.1 is sending the private photographs of the de-facto complainant’s daughter and also making vulgar comments through Face Book Messenger. But, nowhere in the FIR report, the above stated act of the petitioner and his son was mentioned and further, the petitioner is working as a Head Constable and in order to make the petitioner to lose his job, the de-facto complainant had lodged the present complaint with false allegations. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed against the petitioner/accused No.2. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are allegations as against the petitioner in the complaint. He submits that the provisions of law indicated in the charge sheet may be looked into by the Court to come to a just conclusion with regard to the culpability of the petitioner. As such, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 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 in FIR.No.139 of 2019, before Tirupathi West Police Station, Tirupati Urban District for the offences punishable under Sections 354 D1 (ii) r/w 34 IPC and under Section 67 ITA 2000-2008, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” The present petition has been filed 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. 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, [ 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. 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. 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. BhajanLal, [ 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 ] ” the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 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. (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. (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. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 12. Admittedly, the police had registered a case against the petitioner/accused No.2 and the accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 354(D)(1)(ii) r/w 34 IPC and under Section 67 ITA 2000-2008. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 12. Admittedly, the police had registered a case against the petitioner/accused No.2 and the accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 354(D)(1)(ii) r/w 34 IPC and under Section 67 ITA 2000-2008. For better appreciation the aforesaid sections are extracted hereunder: “ Section 354(D) IPC - Stalking: (1) Any man who-- (i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or ( ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking : “ Section 67 of Information Technology Act , 2000: Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. - Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.” 13. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions, would show that the law applies to any person who engages in the dissemination of lascivious material, which refers to content that is sexually explicit, indecent, or obscene. It also covers content that appeals to prurient interest, which indicates that it is designed to provoke or stimulate sexual desires. Furthermore, the provision includes materials that, based on all relevant circumstances, could corrupt or deprave individuals who come across them, whether by reading, viewing, or hearing such content. The law does not just penalize those who directly publish or transmit such material but also those who facilitate or enable its circulation. This means that individuals who host, share, or promote obscene content through digital platforms, social media, messaging services, or websites can also be held liable under this provision. 14. The law does not just penalize those who directly publish or transmit such material but also those who facilitate or enable its circulation. This means that individuals who host, share, or promote obscene content through digital platforms, social media, messaging services, or websites can also be held liable under this provision. 14. From the complaint, it can be seen that due to matrimonial disputes, Accused No.1 filed a divorce petition vide H.M.O.P.No.38 of 2018 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, and on the other hand, the complainant’s daughter filed a domestic violence case against him and his family. The matter was subsequently settled through mediation before the Lok Adalat, Tirupati, and an award was passed on 15.12.2018 under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act , 1987. As per the settlement, the court granted a divorce on 06.06.2019, and Accused No.1 paid Rs.12,00,000/- as a full and final settlement, which was recorded in the Lok Adalat’s award. Thereafter, on 17.06.2019, Respondent No.2 filed a fresh complaint alleging that, at the instigation of petitioner herein, Accused No.1 had been sending private photographs of his daughter and making vulgar comments about her through Facebook Messenger. 15. Except stating that the accused No.1 had committed aforesaid offence at the instigation of the petitioner herein, there is no material evidence to prove whether the petitioner herein had instigated his son i.e., the accused No.1 to commit the alleged crime and further, it can also be clearly understood that without there being any material evidence to prove the guiltiness of the petitioner herein, it is the mere intention of the de-facto complainant to drag the petitioner/accused No.2 into the said criminal proceedings as he is working as a Police Constable. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations that are leveled against the petitioner/accused No.2 are general, omnibus and bald in nature and are abuse of process of law. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 are liable to be quashed. 16. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in FIR.No.139 of 2019, before Tirupathi West Police Station, Tirupati Urban District against the petitioners/accused No.2 are hereby quashed. 17. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this petition shall stand closed.