Pelluru Kuppaswamy Premkumar v. The State Of A.P.,Rep.,Pp

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2885 of 2016 ORDER:

The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.1017 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, filed the present Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of C.C.No.1017 of 2015.

The charge-sheet is filed against petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 342, 506, 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The allegations in the chargesheet are as follows : A1 to A3 are brothers and A4 is their well-wisher and they are residents of Chennai. The offence is said to have been taken place in Veera old age home, Raveendranagar Magunta lay out, Nellore.

On 17-12-2015, A1 to A4 and the daughters of L.W.1 went to L.W.1, when he was at Veera old age home and among them, A1 to A4 trespassed into the room of L.W.1, detained him, manhandled him with hands and legs by demanding the documents of the building. When L.W.1, who is father-in-law of petitioners 1 to 3, refused to give the said documents, accused No.1 pushed the chair with his leg, due to which, L.W.1 fell down along with the chair.

Thereafter, all of them attacked L.W.1 and prevented his movements. After the incident, all of them went away from the room.

In view of the allegations made wherein L.W.1, who was staying in the old age home, was attacked by A1 to A3, who are sons-in-law of L.W.1, along with their friend accused No.4, the ingredients constituting the offences alleged are prima facie made out.

The jurisdiction which this Court exercises under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash a complaint, even before completion of investigation, is limited. The law laid down, in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal[1], which has been followed in several other judgments of the Supreme Court, is that interference is permissible in cases (a) where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not, prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) where the allegations in the FIR and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or the

complaint, and the evidence collected in support of the same, do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (d) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; and (e) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused, and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

The Supreme Court further held that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection, and that too in the rarest of rare cases; the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint; the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice; and even if a complaint has been laid only on account of personal animosity that, by itself, will not be a ground to discard the complaint containing serious allegations which have to be tested and weighed after the evidence is collected.

Having regard to the fact that ingredients constituting

the offences are prima facie made out, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings while exercizing the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this point of time. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are facing much difficulty to attend the court on each and every date of adjournment. Since there is no dispute with regard to identity of the petitioners, even if the presence of petitioners before the trial court is dispensed with, no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution. Having regard to the facts and other attending circumstances of the case, the presence of petitioners 1 to 4, who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C. No.1017 of 2015 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, on each and every date of adjournment, is hereby dispensed with, except on the dates when their presence is required by the Court.

With the above direction, the criminal petition is disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the criminal petition, shall stand closed. _________________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J March 03, 2016.

skmr [1] AIR 1992 SC 604