(Prayer: Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2103/2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nandyal in the interest of justice.

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the charge sheet in C.C.No.2103/2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nandyal for time being and to pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners in C.C.No.2103/2022 on the file of the Judicial 'Magistrate of First Class at Nandyal pending disposes of the above Crl.P. in the interest of Justice.)

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/ Accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2103 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal, of the offences punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they have no connection with the allegations leveled against them. In 2017, they lodged a complaint against respondent No.2 alleging irregularities in the transfers of teachers under the spouse category. Respondent No.2, in turn, lodged a report against petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 and another teacher alleging harassment of students. According to the petitioners, respondent No.2, bearing a grudge against petitioner No.1, lodged a false report alleging that, on 18.04.2022, Accused No.1 telephoned him, introduced himself as an IAS officer, directed him not to lodge a complaint against the petitioners, and asked him to hand over the evidence available with him. The petitioners contend that the allegations are baseless and that there was no reason for them to threaten respondent No.2 in 2022, as the underlying incidents related to 2017. They further contend that the police did not collect any material establishing a conversation between respondent No.2 and Accused No.1, and that the case rests only on the statement of LW.1, without any eyewitness or other supporting material. They allege that the proceedings were initiated to harass them, though the ingredients of the alleged offence are not made out.

3. Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

4. As seen from the record, a case was registered on the report of respondent No.2 in Crime No.115 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC against accused No.1 and the petitioners. The petitioners are husband and wife. It is not in dispute that petitioner No.1 had earlier lodged a report against respondent No.2 alleging irregularities in the transfers of teachers under the spouse category and that respondent No.2 had also lodged a report against petitioner No.1.

5. According to the petitioners, the complaints arose out of events in 2017 and the complaint against petitioner No.1 was closed for want of material. They contend that there was no occasion for them to threaten respondent No.2. The prosecution version, as recorded, is that Accused No.1 telephoned respondent No.2 and threatened him not to proceed against the petitioners and to hand over the evidence relating to the allegations against them. The petitioners are not alleged to have personally made the telephone call or directly uttered the alleged threats.

6. The material placed before this Court does not disclose any specific act on the part of either petitioner in making the alleged telephone call or issuing the alleged threat. The allegation that Accused No.1 acted on behalf of the petitioners, without supporting material showing their participation, knowledge, or intentional assistance, is not by itself sufficient to establish their involvement in the alleged offence. The fact that the petitioners and respondent No.2 had earlier lodged complaints against each other may provide the background to the dispute; however, the existence of such prior disputes, by itself, neither establishes nor disproves the present allegations. The question is whether the allegations and the material collected disclose the petitioners’ involvement in the offence alleged. On the material placed, no specific role or material connecting the petitioners with the alleged criminal intimidation is shown.

7. In this regard, it is to be noted that it is well settled that for the purpose of exercising power under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se and it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. It is also well settled that if the allegations made in the FIR, taken on the face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offense, the criminal proceedings instituted on the basis of such FIR should be quashed. Further, the power of quashing the criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too, in the rarest of rare cases and that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bajanlal and Others. (1992 Supplement 1 SCC 335) Further, Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated seven cardinal principles and they are reproduced as follows:

               “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if 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;

               (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and the other materials, if any, accompanying it do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1), except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

               (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the first information report or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence or make out a case against the accused;

               (4) Where the allegations in the first information report do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, and no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

               (5) Where the allegations made in the first information report or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could ever reach a just conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused;

               (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any provision of the Code or the concerned Act to the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings, or where the Code or the concerned Act provides a specific and efficacious remedy for the grievance of the aggrieved party; and

               (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides or is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to a private and personal grudge.”

8. Record reveals that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioners and absolutely, there is no positive material to attract the case against the petitioners. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the documents relied upon by the petitioners shall not be considered in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also, remaining material doesn’t constitute an offence and continuation of these proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of the process of law leading to injustice.

9. In the present case, even if the prosecution allegations and the material collected are taken at face value, the material referred to before this Court does not disclose any specific overt act or other legally sufficient material connecting the petitioners with the alleged telephone call or the threat attributed to Accused No.1. The allegation that Accused No.1 acted on their behalf, without material indicating their participation or intentional involvement, does not, in the circumstances of this case, make out a prima facie case against the petitioners. This conclusion is confined to the petitioners and is not an adjudication on the merits of the allegations against Accused No.1. In these circumstances, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of Court and warrants exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.2103 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal, for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC, are hereby quashed.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.