Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.S.BHANUMATHI, J.
V.Harinath – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI at Amaravathi. – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8278 OF 2023
Decided On : 01-12-2023
Section 482 Cr.P.C - Quashing of order - A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act - 156(3) Cr.P.C - 354, 307, 166, 506, 509, 420, 34 IPC - The court discussed the application of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the requirement of an affidavit, and the need for the Magistrate to verify the truth and veracity of the allegations. The court also highlighted the necessity of prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) and the requirement for a valid sanction order when ordering investigation against a public servant. The court found that the learned Magistrate did not follow the prescribed procedure and quashed the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The defacto complainant filed a complaint against the petitioners under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for various offences. The petitioners contended that the complainant was abusing the process of law by filing multiple similar cases against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Magistrate did not follow the prescribed procedure and quashed the impugned order.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for an affidavit, verification of allegations, and the requirement for a valid sanction order when ordering investigation against a public servant.
Final Decision: The criminal petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The learned Magistrate was given the opportunity to pass an appropriate order as per law.
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the order dated 04.10.2023 in CF.No.900 of 2023 passed by Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Trial of cases under A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act, Ananthapuramu.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the defacto complainant herein filed a complaint against the petitioners under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C in respect of offences under Sections 354, 307, 166, 506, 509, 420, 34 IPC and the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the SHO, Anantapuramu IV Town Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and directed to investigate and submit report by 03.11.2023.
3. Aggrieved by the same, this petition is filed contending that the defacto complainant filed the complaint when the police officials were on bandobast duty in view of distribution of house site pattas to the poor and that at that time the defacto complainant and other family members came to the spot contenting that the land in Sy.No.253/1A of Lathavaram Village, Uravakonda Mandal belongs to them and threw the chairs and benches, tore the flexies and abused the government officials in filthy language, consequent to which a complaint against the defacto complainant and her family members was registered. On 30.12.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 506 r/w 34 IPC and further revenue officials also filed complaint against the defacto complainant and her family members vide FIR.No.412 of 2020, dated 30.12.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 356, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioners further stated that in respect of land in Sy.No.253/1 of Lathavaram, Uravakonda Mandal, one Ananda Sakhi filed a complaint against the persons who are standing there to receive the pattas and quarreled with the defacto complainant’s family members and FIR.No.413/2020, dated 31.12.2020 was registered under Sections 323, 506,355 r/w 34 IPC, 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S) of SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. In view of all these complaints against the defacto complainant and her family members police have not taken any action and that the defacto complainant is abusing process of law by filing not only this case, but several other similar cases, list of which is as follows:-
| Sl.No. | Name of the PS | Cr.No.& Sec of Law | Name of accused | Present stage |
| 1 | Ananthapuramu Rural PS | 13/2012 U/s 417, 420 IPC | Gandla Chandra Sekhar, S/o Macherlapp | Convicted U/s 248 (2) Cr.P.C on 27.07.2016 for a period of 2 years (SI) and file Rs.10000/- vide CC.No.429/ 2013, by Excise court. |
| 2 | B.K.Samudram PS | 195/2012 U/s 354, 506 r/w 34 IPC & Sec 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act | 1.G.Chandra Sekhar S/o Macherlappa 2. Ramadevi, 3. Geetha, 4.Suri, 5. Ademma W/o Macherlappa 6. Macharlappa | Convicted U/s 235(2) vide SC No.19/2013 for a period of 1 year for SI, and also fine Rs.200/- by SC/ST court on 11.8.2014. |
| 3 | Ananthapuramu 4th Town PS | 102/2016 U/s 506 IPC & Sec 3(i)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act | 1. Suri 2. Macherlappa | Acquittal |
| 4 | Ananthapuramu 4th Town PS | 59/2017 U/s 354(D), 355, 506 r/w 34 IPC & Sec 3(i)(v)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act | 1.G.Chandra Sekhar, S/o Macherlappa 2. G.Macharlappa | Pending Trial |
| 5 | Ananthapuramu Rural PS. Transferred to ATP IV Town PS. | 234/2017 U/s 355, 506 r/w 34 IPC | 1. Ademma W/o Macherlappa 2. Macharlappa | Case was referred as false vide C.No.423/R ef/SDPOA/2021 Dated 23.7.2021 |
| 6 | Ananthapuramu IV Town PS | Cr.No.228/2017 U/s 323, 509 r/w 34 IPC | 1. Talari Anasuya 2. Talari Sankar | Compromised in LokAdalath. |
| 7 | Ananthapuramu Rural PS | 253/2017 U/s 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC & Sec 3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act | 1. Macharlappa S/o Macharlappa 2. Ademma, W/o Macharlappa 3. Surya Narayana 4. Chandra Sekhar | Pending vide Spl SC.No.94/2 018. |
| 8 | Ananthapuramu III Town PS | 131/2018 U/s 354, 509 IPC | 1. Sathi Red | |
The court highlighted the procedural requirements and safeguards when invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, especially in cases involving public servants.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of an affidavit to support the application under Section 156(3) CrPC, the need for prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(....
Direction for Police Investigation – Option to direct registration of case and its investigation by police should be exercised where some “investigation” is required, which is of a nature that is not....
The Magistrate must judiciously exercise discretion in registering FIRs under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., ensuring that mechanical refusals are avoided when cognizable offences are disclosed.
A Magistrate cannot register a subsequent complaint under Section 200 CrPC based on the same facts after a previous complaint has been quashed, as it exceeds jurisdiction.
A Magistrate must provide reasons and apply judicial mind before directing police investigations under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
Receipt of the report Magistrate could either close the proceedings on the pretext that FIR vis-à-vis allegations contained in the complaint already stands registered or she could order for registrat....
The court clarified that a Magistrate's discretion under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously, especially regarding public servants requiring prior sanction under Section 197.
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
