APHC010478362022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396]

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7169/2022 Between:

SUREPALLI SOLOMON, S/O SATYADAS @ MOSES, CHRISTIAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O H. NO. 15-206, WILLIAMPETA, JAGGAYYAPEATA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT'S PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NELAPADU, AMARAVATHI.

2. VEMPATI KEERTHI, D/O KAMALAKARA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT

21 YEARS, WILLIAMPETA, JAGGAYYAPETA.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.1:

1. J.V.PHANIDUTH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. DEVADASS BALANTHA

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

ORDER

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short ‘Cr.P.C’ has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.252 of 2022 on the file of Jaggaiahpet

Police Station, NTR District for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for short ‘I.P.C.’

2. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri J.V. Phaniduth, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. Despite providing sufficient opportunity, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 did not turn up to submit arguments.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that a bare reading of the report given by Respondent No.2 does not disclose the commission of the alleged offences by the Petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, as the marriage proposal of Respondent No.2 with the Petitioner/Accused No.1 was rejected by the Petitioner and his family members, who are the other Accused in the present crime, having borne grudge against them, the present case has been lodged basing on bald and omnibus allegations. Learned Senior Counsel would finally submit that, no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra & Another, (2020) 110 ACC 924 and Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2021) 2 ALD (Cri) (SC) 179

4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that, after getting the job in the Bank, the Petitioner rejected to marry Respondent No.2. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the intention to deceive Respondent No.2 from the inception is the matter to be decided at full length of trial. Since the investigation was stayed at the threshold, and in view of the specific allegations leveled against the Petitioner which would prima facie attract the alleged offences against the Petitioner, the Court cannot quash the proceedings against the Petitioner at this stage. Hence, prays 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 Petitioner/Accused No.1 in Crime No.252 of 2022 on the file of Jaggaiahpet Police Station, NTR 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