The court quashed proceedings for lack of prima facie evidence of crime, affirming the use of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice.

JUDGMENT /ORDER :

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed, by the petitioner/A2, seeking quashment of proceedings in Crime No.253 of 2020 on the file of Podili Police Station, Prakasam District, which was registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (in short, 'I.P.C.').

2. The facts which led to the filing of this petition are:

(a) It is the case of the de facto complainant that she is a resident of Podili Village. Petitioner/A2, who is a resident of 21st Ward, Sultan Mohiddin Nagar, Kandukuru, is a Government Kazi. Petitioner/A2 having obtained money from Pathan Fayaz Khan/husband of the de facto complainant, without her knowledge and consent, illegally prepared Talaqnama, basing on which the name of the de facto complainant was removed from the Service Register of her husband, who is working in Army. Due to the said act, the de facto complainant has been suffering a lot both physically and mentally.

(b) The de facto complainant lodged a report against the accused, based on which a case in Crime No.253 of 2020 for the offence under Section 420 IPC was registered by Podili Police, Prakasam District. This Crime is sought to be quashed in the present petition. Hence Crl.P.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

3. Heard Sri S.A. Razak, learned Counsel for petitioner, and Ms. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent No.1.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that no prima facie case for the offence alleged is made out against the petitioner/A2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner/A2. He would further submit that initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/A2 is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case to bring him to the terms of the de-facto complainant. Further, it is contended that no specific overt acts are attributed against the petitioner to attract the offence under Section 420 I.P.C.

5. Refuting the arguments referred to above, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are no grounds to quash the case against petitioner/A2. She would submit that the allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint would squarely attract the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and therefore, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed against petitioner/A2.

6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned Counsels and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows:

Whether the proceedings against the petitioner/A2 in Crime No.253 of 2020 on the file of Podili Police Station, Prakasam District are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?

Determination by the Court

7. Inherent powers, are as the word suggests, are inalienably present in the Court. They are not conferred, but are merely safeguarded and preserved by provision under Section 482 to the High Court. 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 must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sou