K.Venkat Reddy v. The State Of A.P.,Rep.,Pp

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.14062 of 2015 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.354 of 2015 on the file of the Station House Officer, Kadapa I Town (U/G) Police Station, Kadapa District, registered under Sections 506 and 509 read with 34 IPC.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is two fold:

1. The second respondent foisted a false case against the petitioners as the petitioners lodged a complaint against the second respondent's relatives;

2. Even if the allegations made in the complaint are ex-facie taken to be true and correct, no case is made out against the petitioners.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is not the stage to go into the merits of the case. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners are Accused Nos.1 to 3 and the second respondent is the de facto complainant. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioners herein threatened the second respondent and her family members with dire consequences. A perusal of the record reveals basing on the complaint lodged by the petitioners, the Station House Officer, I Town U/G Police Station, Kadapa, registered a case in Crime No.353 of 2015 against the second respondent and her relatives under Sections 506 and 509 read with 34 IPC. Whether the second respondent has lodged a false complaint or

not will come to light during the course of investigation only. It is needless to say that the court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in order to quash the criminal proceedings at the initial stage of investigation. The court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry to ascertain the truthfulness, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. It is a settled principle of law that the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate investigation. If the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offence much less the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, then this court can quash the proceedings in order to prevent abuse of process of court thereby to secure the ends of justice.

I have carefully perused the material available on record in order to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable thereby to quash the proceedings. The material available on record is prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in R.P.KAPOOR v. STATE OF PUNJAB[1], STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL[2], V.Y.JOSE V STATE OF GURAJAT[3] AND TEEJA DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[4], I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the concerned Station House Officer may be directed not to arrest the petitioners till completion of investigation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to direct the concerned police not to arrest the petitioners till completion of investigation. Accordingly, the Station House Officer, Kadapa I Town U/G Police Station, Kadapa District, is hereby directed not to arrest the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.354 of 2015 till completion of investigation. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

_____________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date:31.12.2015 Rns

[1] AIR 1960 SC 866 [2] AIR 1992 SC 604 [3] (2009) 3 SCC 78 [4] 2015 (1) ACR 564 (SC)