DR.Malluru Jhansi @ Jansi Lakshmi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in relating to the C.C.No. 43 of 2022 in OR No.138 of 2018 on the file of V Additional Judicial >v Magistrate 1st Class, Nellore, and quash the same against the Petitioner/Accused No. 2 I-A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition Section 482 Cr.P.C praying circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceeding's including appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in C.C.No. 43 of 2022 on the file of the Vth Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, pending disposal of the above criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Y Maha Lakshmi Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri P.S.P Suresh Kumar Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following Order: APHC010197562022 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396] (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2989/2022 Between: Dr.Malluru Jhansi @ Jansi Lakshmi ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1.YMAHA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1.PSPSURESH KUMAR

#2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed, by the Petitioner/ Accused No.2, seeking quashment of proceedings pending against her in C.C.No.43 of 2022 in Cr.No.138 of 2018 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

#2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, ^ learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent.

#3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that Respondent No.2 herein filed four private complaints on 09.01.2018, on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore against the Petitioner herein and others by concocting different set of facts as if series of incidents have taken place on those particular dates. (a) Learned counsel would further submit that learned Magistrate forwarded those complaints to the police and basing on which the police have registered the same as Crime Nos. 133/2018, 134/2018 137/2018 and 138/2018 respectively. The police after due investigation filed final report

02.08.2019 in Crime No. 138/2018 stating that the accused did not visit the house of the Complainant on those days and did not threaten the witnesses in Crime No. 127/2017 and concluded that the Complainant filed false reports before Court threaten accused through police O.S.No.60/2017 which was filed by A1, A6 and A7 against the 2 Respondent. The police concluded the investigation saying that the cases filed by the 2'"'^ Respondent are false. (b) Learned counsel would further submit that Respondent No.2 aggrieved by the final reports, filed protest petitions in all four cases stating that the Petitioner and others started threatening her and the witnesses in Crime No.127/2017 from the date of its registration, with dire consequences to withdraw the said case. It is further alleged against the Petitioner that on 3

30.11.2017 at about 08:00 PM, A1 to A5 along with their followers five in number, criminally trespassed into the house of the Complainant and that A1 & A2 abused her, intimidated her as, how dare she to lodge a complaint against them. Learned counsel would further submit that it is alleged against A1 that he pressed her throat, confined her, threatened her, bet her with hands and legs and threatened to kill her and her son, thereby committed offences U/s 341,342, 420, 468, 447 and 506 r/w 34 IPC. (c) Learned counsel would also submit that on a private complaint filed by the Complainant, which was referred to the police for investigation. Thereafter, Crime No.138/2018 was registered. After investigation police filed final report stating that it is a false case. Learned counsel further would submit that the Complainant in her sworn statement stated that the incident had taken place on 29.11.2017, whereas in the private complaint it is mentioned as

30.11.2017. (d) Learned counsel would further submit that the order passed by the learned Magistrate in all four cases is very similar order and the said order is bereft of any reasons. (e) Learned counsel would further submit that only to settle the issue in OS. No. 60/2017, a false case has been lodged against the Petitioner. The Respondent No.2 tried to convert the civil dispute into a criminal case. Learned Magistrate mechanically passed the cognizance order in all four cases which is not tenable under law. (f) Learned counsel would further submit that the witnesses who have supported the Complainant are stock witnesses in all cases. PW2 is the very same person that deposed in all cases. Learned counsel would further submit that one Bhavi Reddy filed in OS.No.60 of 2017 against the Complainant for recovery of money and there is a civil dispute in the division of the plots. Only to pressurize the accused in the civil suit, these false complaints have been lodged. (g) Learned counsel would further submit that it is alleged that against the accused that they have pressurized her not to give evidence in Crime No.127 of 2017.

#4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that Crime No. 127/2017 is the genesis for filing four cases against the accused. The police have not registered the case. Only after filing of a writ petition by the 2"^^ respondent, the police have registered the Crime No. 127/2017. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would further submit that they are all independent cases. Learned counsel would submit that as far as the difference in the date of incident in the statement of the Complainant is concerned, it is a typographical mistake. Learned counsel finally submits that if in case this Court feels the order is without reasons, the matter may be remanded back to trial Court for fresh consideration. 5

#5. As can be seen from the record, the docket order dated 04.12.2021 in CC.No.43 of 2022, on the file of V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore is as follows: “Perused complaint and sworn statements of Pws.1 to 4 recorded and other relevant material on record. Cognizance of offence is taken under sec. 448, 341, 342, 506 r/w 34 I PC. There are sufficient grounds for issuance of proceedings against accused no. 1 to 6. Hence, issue summons to A1 to A7 by 01.02.2022 on payment of process. ” Determination by the Court:

#6. Section 190 of Criminal Procedure Code, which empowers a Magistrate to take cognizancereads as follows; 'Section 190- Cognizance of offences by Magistrates: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially (2), may take empowered in cognizance of any offence- this behalf under sub-section (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2)

#7. When the report of the police states that no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate is equipped with three choices i.e., (A) Magistrate may accept the report and drop the proceedings or (B) Magistrate 6 may disagree with the report and take a view that there is sufficient ground for * r proceeding further, and as such take cognizance of the offence and issue process or (C) Magistrate may direct further investigation to be made under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

#8. When a Magistrate is of the view as provided i in option (B) supra, due consideration must be given to the material emanating from the record. In other words, the Magistrate can independently apply his mind to the materials contained in the police report and thereafter take cognizance, in exercise of powers vested under Section 190 (1) (b) of Cr.P C Reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'bie Apex Court in Gangadbar Jaaardaa Mbafre v. State of Maharashtra{2004) 7 SCC 768 wherein it was noted as follows;

#9. .. ..The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, exercise his powers under Section 190(1)(b) and direct the issue of process to the aecosecf. The Magistrate is not hound in such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in Sections 200 and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance of a case under Section 190(1)(a) though It IS open to him to act under Section 200 or Section 202 a/sa [See India Carat (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka. (1989) 2 SCC 132] (SCC P. 140, Para 16).’’ (emphasis supplied)

#9. The Hon’bie Apex Court in Fakhruddin Ahmad V. State of Uttaranchal ((2008) 17 SCC 157) observed the i importance of application of mind by a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, as follows: “17. Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or the information received from a source other than a police report, as the case may be, and the material filed is only when the therewith. Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence and decides to initiate it can be proceedings against alleged positively stated that he has taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the offender.” It needs little emphasis that it offender, (emphasis supplied)

#10. Taking of cognizance is thus an important judicial function, which requires application of mind. More so, when a Magistrate intends to differ from the view in the report of the police, it is essential that such Magistrate wears an independent lens to view at the issue with due care and caution based on the facts that are borne out from the record. In the order taking cognizance, a Magistrate should justify such recourse, with at least bare minimum reasons for his/her satisfaction to proceed further from the preliminary stage. This Court in Shaik Khasimsa v. A. Srinivasa Rao,{2023 SCC Online AP 155110) explained the pertinence of a reasoned order by an authority and outlined the necessity of the same in the following terms; “19. Any order passed without reasons is not sustainable under law. First, recording of reasons is mandated in orders as they serve multiple purposes. Primarily, a reasoned order offers clarity to the stakeholders of justice delivery system, it makes the parties aware of why a certain claim is allowed and why a it creates a better certain contention is negated. opportunity for the courts sitting in appeal/revision to identify the examination adopted in the order. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Further, 8 Ltd. Kranti Associates Pvt. v. Masood Ahmed Khan summarized the law on recording of reasons observing that it is intended to serve the wider principle of justice, and it also ensures that the discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. ” (emphasis supplied)

#11. Thus, an order taking cognizance should reflect the application of a judicial mind on the facts involved in each case. Any order of a Magistrate taking cognizance, in a routine, casual, cryptic, and cursory manner would be in transgression of law. In the case on hand. Police after examining the neighbouring witnesses and after due investigation, filed charge sheet referring the case as false, since nothing has been elicited against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same. Respondent No.2 filed a protest petition before the learned Magistrate to take cognizance against the Petitioner.

#12. A bare perusal of the cognizance order would show that the learned Magistrate had simplytaken cognizance of the offences against the Petitioner without assigning any reasons by simply stating “Perused complaint and sworn statements of Pws.1 to 4 recorded and other relevant material on record. ...”.

#13. In the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the case and the position referred supra, when the Order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences against the Petitioner is examined, the said order is bereft of any reasons. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to 9 prevent abuse of the process of the Court. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that Order of cognizance against the Petitioner is unsustainable.

#14. In the result the petition is disposed of and the matter is remanded to V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore for fresh consideration. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ^ a SECTION OFFICER To,

#1. The V Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Nellore,

#2. The Station house Officer Nellore VI Town Police Station Nellore,

#3. One CC to Smt. Y Maha Lakshmi Advocate [OPUC]

#4. One CC to Sri. P.S.P Suresh Kumar Advocate [OPUC]

#5. Two CC s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

#6. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED : 17/12/2024 ORDER CRLP.No.2989 of 2022 /O t 0 9 SEP 2025 TX O V V^spatcw6P>^ DISPOSING OF THE CRLP