IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.
M. C. Saraswathamma, D/O. Late M.C. Govinda Reddy and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of A P, Rep. By Its Public Prosecutor and ors. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 1911/2022
Decided On : 07-01-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 read with 34 - Quashment of proceedings sought by Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 in Crime No.18 of 2022 - Allegations of abetment of suicide - Court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 are to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice - The court must not act as a court of appeal or revision in such matters. (Paras 6, 10)
(B) Quashing of FIR - The court reiterated that quashing should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases where no cognizable offence is disclosed - The court cannot conduct a mini trial at this stage. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioners sought quashment of proceedings related to allegations of abetting suicide stemming from long-standing family disputes. The deceased allegedly committed suicide due to harassment from the accused. (Paras 1, 8)
Findings of Court:
The court found no justifiable grounds for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners, emphasizing the need for investigation to proceed. (Paras 10, 14)
Issues: The main issue was whether there were justifiable grounds for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners in the context of the allegations made. (Para 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised cautiously and only in exceptional cases, affirming that the investigation must proceed to ascertain the truth of the allegations. (Paras 6, 10)
Result: Criminal Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.
The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973]for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in Crime No.18 of 2022 on the file of Somandepalli Police Station, Ananthapur District registered for the offence under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for short ‘IPC’.
2. Heard Sri Kata Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that there are disputes between the family of Respondent No.2 and Accused No.1 for the last 25 years. Learned counsel would further submit that prima facie the ingredients of the alleged offence do not attract against the Petitioners. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged offence and they are not the parties to the alleged disputes. The Petitioners are falsely implicated. Learned counsel would finally submit that there are no specific allegations against the Petitioners and hence, continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse of process of law.
4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that this is a premature stage to decide the culpability of the Petitioners in the alleged crime. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the complaint discloses the names of the Petitioners. It is submitted that, in view of the stay granted, the investigation has not been completed and unless the same is completed, the presence of the Petitioners at the time of the alleged incident cannot be revealed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Point for Determination
5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:
Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 in Crime No.18 of 2022 on the file of Somandepalli Police Station, Ananthapur District?
Determination by the Court
6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.
7. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At Paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows;
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to prevent abuse of process and secure justice, exercised sparingly, allowing investigations to proceed unless no cognizable offence is disclosed.
The court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to prevent abuse of process and secure justice, and quashing of FIR should be exercised sparingly.
The court established that quashing of FIRs should be rare, emphasizing the importance of allowing police investigations to proceed unless there are compelling reasons otherwise.
The court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice, allowing for investigation into allegations.
The court established that charges cannot be sustained without adequate evidence, and magistrates must provide reasons for their decisions to ensure justice.
The court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice, especially when allegations do not con....
The court emphasized the need for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice to invoke the inherent powers of the High Court and highlighted the need for circumspection and ca....
The court affirmed that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed solely on the basis that the allegations may also constitute a civil wrong, emphasizing the need for trial to determine the merits.
The court ruled that criminal proceedings should not be used to settle civil disputes and can be quashed if they do not establish a prima facie case of criminal offence.
The court established that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised cautiously and only when no prima facie case exists against the accused.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.