Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.
P. Siva Prasad S/o Venkateswarlu – Petitioner
Versus
Bodipudi Ramanamma W/o Malakondaiah – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 3298 of 2019
Decided On : 15-12-2023
Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Sections 323, 506, 34 IPC - [SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED] - The court discussed the application of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the allegations under Sections 323, 506, 34 IPC. It highlighted the mandatory requirement of examining the complainant on oath under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the principles established in various judgments related to taking cognizance of an offense, quashing of criminal proceedings, and the need for prima facie evidence to proceed with the trial.
Fact of the Case:
The defacto complainant alleged that the accused scolded in vulgar language, threatened to evict from the house, and beat them, leading to the filing of a charge sheet against the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no specific allegation against A3 and A4, and the case against them was quashed. However, the case against A1 was not quashed as it prima facie constituted an offense.
Issues: The issues revolved around the mandatory examination of the complainant on oath, the application of Section 34 IPC, and the quashing of criminal proceedings based on prima facie evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for examining the complainant on oath under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the requirement of prima facie evidence to proceed with the trial, and the principles established in various judgments related to quashing of criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: The Criminal Petition was partly allowed, and the case against accused Nos.3 & 4 was quashed, while the case against accused No. 1 was not quashed.
ORDER :
1. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), praying to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1, A3 and A4 in C.C.No. 388 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.
2. The 1st respondent herein, who is the defacto complainant (hereinafter called as ‘defacto complainant’), has lodged a report to the police alleging that the accused herein have scolded in vulgar language and threatened to evict from the house, otherwise, they will kill the 1st respondent and his family members and there is no such hesitation to go to jail.
3. Basing upon the said report lodged by the defacto complainant, the police registered the case in Crime No. 295 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 323, 506 I.P.C. r/w Section 34 I.P.C. and investigated into the case and filed charge sheet against the accused with the following averments:
4. About 30 years back, the defacto complainant and her husband requested the father of the 1st accused and husband of the 2nd accused to give some house site at 7/7, Srinagar, Guntur, build one asbestos sheeted house and residing into it by grazing the buffalos and while the things stood thus, A1 and A2 are forcing the defacto complainant to vacate the house. In this connection, some grudges that are prevailing in between the defacto complainant and the accused are surfaced.
5. Accusation precisely: On 01.05.2014 at about 8-30 a.m., the A1 and A2 went to the house of the defacto complainant, made quarrel with them, beat them with hands and abused them in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences.
6. While filing the charge sheet, the police have deleted the names of A3 and A4 from the array of the accused. Aggrieved by deletion of the names of A3 and A4 from the array of the accused in the charge sheet, the defacto complainant herein filed a Protest Petition before the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, vide Crl.M.P.No. 5836 of 2015, and the learned Judge, by order dated 23.09.2016, has allowed the said petition and added A3 and A4 as accused, asserting that the investigating officer did not include A3 and A4 as accused and there is prima facie case against the A3 and A4.
7. On perusing the sworn statement and the report lodged by the defacto complainant and other material available on record, it is alleged that A1 to A4 beat the defacto complainant and also threatened them. On perusal of the order, learned Magistrate has misunderstood the array of accused wrongly. In fact, the police have deleted the names of A3 and A4 in the charge sheet from the array of the accused, but the learned Magistrate has stated that police have deleted the names of A2 and A3. As seen from the orders and the charge sheet, there is no specific allegation against A3 and A4 and it is also pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has not examined the defacto complainant on oath while adding A3 and A4 basing upon the protest petition.
8. Under Section 200 Cr.P.C., it is mandatory that the Court while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and even though law is otherwise with regard to the witnesses, it is mandatory on the part of the Court to examine the complainant on oath.
9. After filing the charge sheet, the Court below has registered the case as C.C.No. 388 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, which has been assailed in the present Criminal Petition on the ground that the A1 and A2 are the original owners of the property and they have filed a civil suit O.S.No. 310 of 2014 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, for eviction of the defacto complainant and the same was decreed, when the accused filed the suit for eviction, then the defacto complainant has filed the present complaint to convert the civil dispute into a criminal dispute and they have not committed any offence as alleged
The court established that civil disputes should not be mischaracterized as criminal offenses to avoid abuse of the judicial process.
The court established that criminal proceedings cannot be maintained when the underlying dispute is purely civil in nature.
Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained when the underlying dispute is purely civil, as it constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.
Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained when the underlying dispute is purely civil, to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
The court held that criminal proceedings cannot continue when the underlying dispute is civil in nature, to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that a second complaint relating to the same incident is not prohibited under the Code, and if it presents a different version with additional alle....
The court established that civil disputes should not be cloaked as criminal offenses to avoid abuse of the judicial process.
Point of Law : Scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondent, is narrow. It has to be exercised only in rare cases where perversity is w....
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
