Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J.
Saripalli Rama Sattaiah & Others – Appellant
Versus
The State of A.P. Another – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.7967 of 2013
Decided on : 14-06-2023
Section 482 - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 324, 379, 448 read with 109 IPC - The court discussed the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P., 2015 (3) ALT (Crl.) 26 (SC) regarding the necessity of a proper affidavit for a private complaint and the requirement of prior application under Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C before an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is ordered. The court also referred to the guidelines in State of Haryana & Others Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604, which specify the circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its plenary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
A private complaint was filed against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 324, 379, 448 read with 109 IPC. The court found the complaint to be vague and ambiguous, and noted the history of previous litigation between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the complaint did not prima facie disclose any offence against the petitioners and that the proceedings were manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the private complaint, the application of legal principles in quashing criminal proceedings, and the abuse of process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various cases, including the necessity of a proper affidavit for a private complaint, the requirement of prior application under Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C before an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is ordered, and the guidelines specifying the circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its plenary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings.
Final Decision: The criminal petition was allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.156 of 2013 were quashed.
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) is filed by the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 seeking quash of proceedings in C.C.156 of 2013 pending on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur, West Godavari District.
2. Heard Sri K.Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. The 2nd respondent filed written arguments.
3. A private complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent, and having satisfied with the allegations made in the complaint and having found prima facie case, the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur had taken on file vide C.C.No.156 of 2013 under Sections 324, 379 and 448 read with 109 IPC against the petitioners/A.1 to A.4.
4. On further perusal of the complaint, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 and reiterated the earlier litigation between them and filed the complaint against petitioners/A.1 to A.4 without disclosing any offence and therefore, the same is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute any offence against the petitioners/A.1 to A.4, of which the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate. A perusal of the complaint does not disclose any material evidence and it is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done. A reading of the complaint and the allegations made therein do not constitute any offence. Even the Magistrate did not apply the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P., 2015 (3) ALT (Crl.) 26 (SC) that (a) a private complaint should be supported by a proper affidavit and (b) before an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is ordered, there should be a prior application under Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. Both these aspects should be spelt out in the application and necessary documents should be filed. Due to non-application of mind, in a routine manner, the complaint has been taken on file for the offence under Sections 324, 379 and 448 read with 109 IPC against the petitioners/A.1 to A.4. Questioning the same, the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 filed the present petition to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.156 of 2013 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur, West Godavari District.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/A.1 to A.4 submitted that the 2nd respondent is habituated to create litigations and filed false complaints one after the other. Further, he would submit that, earlier the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.62 of 2008 of Narsapur Town Police Station and the same was quashed by this Court on 07.12.2011 in Criminal Petition No.4525 of 2008. He further submitted that there were matrimonial disputes between the 3rd petitioner/A.3 and the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent filed a petition in O.P.No.36 of 2005 against 3rd petitioner/A.3 to dissolve their marriage dated 05.02.1999 and the same was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur. He would further submit that in spite of quashing the criminal proceedings in Crime No.62 of 2008 dated 07.12.2011, the 2nd respondent used to lodge false complaints in S.R.Nos.7653 of 2008 and 7655 of 2008 and the trial Court dismissed the petitions filed by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the earlier complaint filed by the 2nd respondent came to be quashed. Therefore, he prays to allow the criminal petition.
6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the act of the learned Magistrate, having satisfied and found prima facie case, in taking cognizance under Sections 324, 379 and 448 read with 109 IPC against the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 is perfectly in line.
7. The 2nd respondent/Party-in-Person filed written arguments and submitted that there are no grounds to quash the cri
The court emphasized the need for a proper affidavit for a private complaint, the requirement of prior application under Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C before an application under Section 156(3) Cr....
The court established that civil disputes should not be mischaracterized as criminal offenses to avoid abuse of the judicial process.
The court emphasized the necessity of reasoned orders in judicial decisions and the inherent power to quash proceedings that constitute an abuse of the legal process.
Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained when the underlying dispute is purely civil, to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
The High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process when complaints are motivated by civil disputes.
The court established that under Section 494 IPC, only the husband can be charged with bigamy, not the second wife or her family, leading to quashing of proceedings.
Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained when the underlying dispute is purely civil, as it constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.
A Magistrate must apply mind and provide reasons when forwarding a complaint for police investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
The court established that criminal proceedings cannot be maintained when the underlying dispute is purely civil in nature.
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
