(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 Courtpleased to direct the respondents to delete the names of the petitioner's/proposed accused A-3, A-10, and A-11, in the Order passed in protest petition filed by the defacto complainant vide Crl.M.P. No.133/2022 in C.C. No.396/2021 on the file of the Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Mobile) cum- III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Eluru. On the strength of the charge sheet filed by the respondent police in C.C. No.396/2021 in which the proposed accused A3, A10 86 A-11 names were not revealed and pass

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 pleased to direct the respondents to delete the names of the petitioner's/proposed accused A-3, A-10, and A-11, in the Order passed in protest petition filed by the defacto complainant vide Crl.M.P. No.133/2022 in C.C. No.396/2021 on the file of the Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Mobile) cum- III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Eluru. On the strength of the charge sheet filed by the respondent police in C.C. No.396/2021 in which the proposed accused A3, A10 and A-11 names were not revealed and pass)

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash C.C. No. 396 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile), Eluru, for the offences under Sections 448, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’).

2. The case of the petitioners is, the petitioner No.1 is the wife of Accused No.1 and due to disputes between them, his wife gave report against him. On 07.11.2020, father-in-law of the petitioner, petitioner No.3/B.Rajesh and others trespassed into his house, abused him, beat him and his mother and threatened them with dire consequences. Accordingly, respondent No.3 gave report to the police and the same is registered as a case in Crime No.237 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 448, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Code against Accused Nos.1 to 9 including the petitioner No.3 herein. Further, the Investigating Officer did not file charge sheet against all the petitioners and filed the same against Accused Nos.1 to 9, except petitioner No.3/Accused No.3, for the offences stated supra. Being dissatisfied by the same, respondent No.3 filed a protest petition under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon completion of enquiry in the said petition and after considering the material placed before the learned Trial Judge, the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile), Eluru issued summons to the petitioners.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 16.05.2022 in Crl.M.P. No.133 of 2022 in C.C. No.396 of 2021, the petitioners filed this present Criminal Petition.

4. As seen from the record, accused No.1 is the wife and accused No.2 is father-in-law of respondent No.3/de facto complainant in C.C. No.396 of 2021 and it is pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile), Eluru. The allegations against Accused Nos.4 to 9 are that they also trespassed into the house of respondent No.3 and beat him. However, the police did not file charge sheet against petitioner No.3 on the ground that as per the evidence of the neighbours, the accused/petitioner No.3 did not commit any offence.

5. The grounds urged by the respondent No.3/petitioner in Crl.M.P. No.133 of 2022 in C.C. No.396 of 2021 are that petitioner No.3 actually participated in the offence and that his name is also mentioned in the report, petitioners Nos.1 and 2 herein are the sisters and henchmen of accused Nos.1 and 2 and at the instigation of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, the other accused committed the offence. Report of the respondent No.3 reveals that on 07.11.2020, when he was at his house, accused Nos.1 to 9 and others trespassed into his house and beat him and his mother. Had really petitioner Nos.1 & 2 also participated in the offence and responsible for commission of offence, respondent No.3 should have been included their names also in the report.

6. As seen from the order of the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.133 of 2022, absolutely no justifiable reasons have been assigned to issue summons to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. It is simply mentioned that the court found it just and necessary to add the names of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 as accused Nos.10 and 11 and consequently, issued summons to them along with the other accused. Before ordering the issuance of summons, the learned trial court ought to have considered the entire material and assigned justifiable reasons to establish the involvement of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Without there being any material against them, it is not proper to add them as accused and issue summons. Insofar as petitioner No.3 is concerned, the report clearly reveals the name of the petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2 has specifically stated that petitioner No.3 also trespassed into his house and beat him. Therefore, the argument of petitioner No.3 that he did not commit any offence and that he has been unnecessarily arrayed as accused No.3 cannot be taken into consideration.

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 charge sheet, 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 offence, 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 shall 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). Having been elaborately discussed the issue, Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated seven cardinal principles and the same are reproduced as follows:

                  "1) Where the allegations made in the first information report 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.

                  2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose 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 FIR or 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.

                  4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence, but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, 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 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.

                  6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act, under which a criminal proceeding is instituted, to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

                  7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

8. Having given thoughtful consideration to the aforementioned principles and in the given facts and circumstances, this Court came to conclusion that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner No.3 to attract the ingredients of punishable sections. The allegations made in the first information report or the charge sheet, 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 petitioner Nos.1 and 2.

9. In the result, this Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.396 of 2021 against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 of the offences under Sections 448, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Code and in so far as petitioner No.3 is concerned, the petition is dismissed.

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