Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J.
M. Hanumantha Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of A.P. and Ors. – Respondents
Crl. P. Nos. 4560 and 4642 of 2019
Decided On : 30-08-2019
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing of proceedings – Criminal petitions are filed challenging docket order – Whether respondent is the de-facto complainant – Appeal – Held, Court notices that the case has a long and chequered history – Additional documents were also filed which go into the merits of the matter –
Court is of the opinion that continuation of the further proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of the Court – Due to the non-application of mind; the routine manner in which the complaint has been referred to the Police for investigation, failure to notice the mandate – Court has to come to a conclusion that continuation of this process would amount to an abuse of process of law – Hence, as the contesting respondent/de-facto complainant has also been heard, this Court is of the opinion that both the applications have to be allowed – Criminal Petitions are allowed and the docket order is hereby quashed all further proceedings consequently are also nullified – Petition allowed. (Para 17 and 24)
Facts of the case:
In both the criminal petitions, IA. No. 2 is filed for stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the docket order dated 11.07.2019 passed in CFR. No. 789 of 2019 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Piduguralla. The main criminal petitions are filed challenging the said docket order. In Crl.P. No. 4642 of 2019, petitioner is the second accused and in Crl.P. No. 4560 of 2019, petitioner is the 8th accused. In both the applications, the 2nd respondent is the de-facto complainant.
Findings of the case:
Court notices that the case has a long and chequered history – Additional documents were also filed which go into the merits of the matter – Court is of the opinion that continuation of the further proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of the Court – Due to the non-application of mind; the routine manner in which the complaint has been referred to the Police for investigation, failure to notice the mandate – Court has to come to a conclusion that continuation of this process would amount to an abuse of process of law – Hence, as the contesting respondent/de-facto complainant has also been heard, this Court is of the opinion that both the applications have to be allowed – Criminal Petitions are allowed and the docket order is hereby quashed all further proceedings consequently are also nullified.
Result: Petition allowed
ORDER :
D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.
1. Both the Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the docket order dated 11.07.2019 passed in CFR. No.789 of 2019 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Piduguralla, Guntur District.
2. This Court has heard Sri Ponsani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner representing both Sri P. Sai Surya Teja and Sri Ancha Pandu Ranga Rao for the petitioners. The learned Advocate General appeared for the 1st respondent-State. For the 2nd respondent learned counsel Sri V. Sai Kumar appeared.
3. With the consent of all the counsel, the main criminal petitions itself were taken up for hearing.
4. In both the criminal petitions, IA. No. 2 is filed for stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the docket order dated 11.07.2019 passed in CFR. No. 789 of 2019 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Piduguralla. The main criminal petitions are filed challenging the said docket order. In Crl.P. No. 4642 of 2019, petitioner is the second accused and in Crl.P. No. 4560 of 2019, petitioner is the 8th accused. In both the applications, the 2nd respondent is the de-facto complainant.
5. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel commenced his arguments and argued on behalf of the petitioner in both the cases.
6. The issue in this case arises out of a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein before the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Piduguralla on 10.07.2019. It was supported by an affidavit. The learned Additional First Class Magistrate passed the following order on 11.07.2019:
"Complainant is present. Heard and perused the record. Complaint is forwarded to SHO, Piduguralla under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for carrying out investigation and to file charge sheet. Call on 29.07.2019."
7. This is the order that is impugned in both the criminal petitions.
8. The fundamental submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order does not disclose the needed application of mind. He submits that a reading of the order does not show that the learned Magistrate applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is his contention that this order which is very brief and terse is opposed to the settled law on the subject. He also submits that a reading of the complaint would show that the alleged offences took place in the years 2013, 2015, 2016 and on various other dates. Learned counsel submits that the Magistrate should have seen if there is any explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the application/private complaint in July, 2019. According to the learned counsel, the fact that these dates are not considered nor was delay taken into account is manifest from a reading of the docket order itself. As a corollary, he states that this itself discloses the "non-application" of mind.
9. He also submits that there are a lot of internal inconsistencies in dates and admissions and the Magistrate did not apply his mind to the same. Lastly, the learned counsel submits that as per the case law of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. 2015 (3) ALT (Crl.) 26 (SC) : (2015) 6 SCC 287, the preconditions for ordering investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, are not made out. Learned counsel, apart from Priyanka Srivastava''s case relies upon the following judgments.
(1) Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, 2014 (1) ALT (Crl.) 317 (SC) : (2013) 10 SCC 705
(2) Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi, (2007) 12 SCC 641
and lastly the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court delivered in Crl.P. No. 2850 of 2016.
10. The impugned order that has been passed has been set out earlier. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset argued that in the prayer portion of the private complaint, the petitioner merely prayed for an FIR under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. He pointed out that the FIR which is filed as an additional document has listed the following offences. Sections 420, 406, 307, 166, 323, 506, 120-B IPC and 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel points out that t
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
