APHC010089652022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1504/2022 Between:

Pentakota Srinivasa Rao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The Sho and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. M BALASUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. P VIVEK

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

ORDER :

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed, by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in FIR.No.1741 of 2021 on the file of the S.H.O., Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.

2. Sri Bala Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is currently working as a site engineer at Siemens Company. Respondent No.2 is engaged in business and contract work related to electrical services. Respondent No.2 herself approached the contractors, and the petitioner has no connection with her dealings. Respondent No.2 is attempting to pressure the contractors to settle bills through the petitioner and it is in this context that the present case has been filed. The learned counsel further submits that there is no evidence to suggest that the petitioner cheated Respondent No.2. Apart from vague allegations against the petitioner, there is no prima facie evidence. Learned counsel would finally submit that the petition may be allowed.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that, though there is no stay in this matter, at the interim stage, Court directed the Police not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioner. As such, it appears no progress in the investigation. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the petition may be disposed of giving liberty to the police to conclude the investigation.

5. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, wherein, a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the following principles of law:-

“57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge:

i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences;

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the „rarest of rare cases‟. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of

activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Sectio