IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST,

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

: PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

IA No. 2 OF 2022

IN

CRLP Nos: 6026, 6027 & 6037 OF 2022

IA No. 2 OF 2022 IN Crlp No: 6026 of 2022

Between:

M. Vishnuvardhana Rao, S/o Mandava Venkata Ratnam Aged about 61 years, R/o Flat No. 402, Samskruti Apartments, Gurunanak Nagar Colony, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 520008

AND

...Petitioner/Accused No.3

• 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through The Station House Officer, Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur District represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP At Amaravati
• 2. Parmathmani Venkata Suresh Kumar, S/o Nageswara Rao, aged about 42 years, resident of NRI Quarters, Chinakakani Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District Working as Senior Manager HR at NRI Acadamy of Science.

...Respondents/Respondents

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in FIR/Crime No. 378 of 2022 on the file of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur District, pending disposal of CRLP No.6026 of 2022, on the file of the High Court.

IA No. 2 OF 2022 IN Crlp No: 6027 of 2022

Between:

M. Vishnuvardhana Rao, S/o Mandava Venkata Ratnam Aged about 61 years, R/o Flat No. 402, Samskruti Apartments, Gurunanak Nagar Colony, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 520008

AND

...Petitioner/Accused

• 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through The Station House Officer, Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur District represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP At Amaravati
• 2. Rompicherla Kishore, S/o Subba Rao, aged 44 years, Mylavaram, Vijayawada, NTR District.

...Respondents/Defacto Complainant

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in FIR/Crime No.375 of 2022 on the file of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur District by directing the respondent not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner in proceedings related to FIR No. 375/2022, pending disposal of CRLP No.6026 of 2022, on the file of the High Court.

IA No. 2 OF 2022 IN Crlp No: 6037 of 2022

Between:

M. Vishnuvardhana Rao, S/o Mandava Venkata Ratnam Aged about 61 years, R/o Flat No. 402, Samskruti Apartments, Gurunanak Nagar Colony, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 520008

AND

CRA

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through The Station House Officer, Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur District represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP At Amaravati

...Respondent

2. Somu Krishna Murthy, Secretary, NRI Acadamy of Sciences, Chinakakani, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur Urban, Guntur District

...Respondent/De-facto Complainant

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in FIR/Crime No.308/2022 dated.15.06.2022 on the file of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur Urban, Guntur Districtby directing the respondent not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner in proceedings related to FIR/Crime No.308/2022, pending disposal of CRLP No.6026 of 2022, on the file of the High Court

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. S Pranathi, Advocate for the Petitioner in all the petitions and of Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1 in all the petitions, the Court made the following COMMON ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

I.A.No.2 of 2022 in

$\mathbf{1}$

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6026, 6027, 6037 of 2022

ORDER:

These three Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking for quash of FIRs in Crime Nos.378 of 2022, 375 of 2022 and 308 of 2022 on the file of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur District. The petitioner herein has been appointed as interim Administrator of NRI Academy of Sciences by an order dated 14.05.2022 passed by Ld.Sole Arbitrator – Hon'ble Justice Devinder Gupta (Retd.).

Learned Public Prosecutor takes notice on behalf of the 1st $2.$ respondent-State.

$3.$ Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, counsel offered Vakalath on behalf of the $2^{nd}$ respondents/defato complainants.

Before going to the merits of the case, since there are disputes 4. existed between the Societies members, several complaints have been lodged between them. Ultimately, the members have filed Writ Appeals vide W.A.No.234 of 2022, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has passed the following orders:-

"7. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, Sri Justice Devinder Gupta (Retired Chief Justice) is appointed as sole Arbitrator to decide all existing disputes between the parties referable to Section 23 of the Act, 2011. It will remain open for both the parties to agitate all legal and factual aspects of the disputes before the Arbitrator. Learned Senior Counsel would agree that all pending litigations in relation to the subject dispute before any other legal forums/courts shall be withdrawn by the respective parties. Needles to say, depending upon the need and urgency, both parties would be at liberty to approach the Arbitrator for any interim order. We make it clear that the question of law pertaining to interpretation of Section 9 of the Act, 2011 is left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings."

$5.$ Pursuant to the above order of the Division Bench, based on the application filed by the claimants, the arbitrator has passed the orders on 14.05.2022, appointing the petitioner as an administrator of the institution, which reads as follows:

STATES

"Accordingly, Mr. Mandava Vishnuvardhana Rao, IPC (Retd.) is appointed with immediate effect to take over the charge as an Administrator of NRI Academy of Sciences, Chinakakani. Guntur District and look after and manage all the affairs including financial matters till further orders, whose particulars, as obtained by me from the High court are as under:"

Subsequent to the above said appointment, the petitioner has 6. performing his duties in terms of the appointment orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal by Justice Devinder Gupta.

7. While so, aggrieved by the said appointment, some of the persons have approached the competent civil court under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, treating the said orders as intermediate Award. The same were numbered as AOP No. $2/2022$ and $3/2022$ on the file of the XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada at Nuzivid, wherein the court below passed orders staying the operation of the proceedings dated 14.05.2022, restraining the petitioner as an administrator. It is needless to mention that orders in AOP No. $3/22$ were interdicted by this Court in C.R.P.No.983 of 2022, vide order dated 26.05.2022 by suspending the same. As against the orders in $I.A.No.110/22$ in AOP $No.2/2022$ the petitioners preferred SLP and in SLP appeal Nos.13362/2022, 13288-13291/2022 the Hon'bel Apex Court has passed the following order:-

"In the meantime, operation of the order dated 23^rd May, 2022 passed by the Vacation Civil Judge-cum-XX A.D.J., VJA, Camp at Nuzvid in IA No.110/2022 in AOP No.2/2022 shall remain stayed.

It is made clear that pendency of these petitions before this Court would not come in the way of the High Court disposing of the Revision petitions which are being heard by it.

We are sure that the Administrator will run the college/Hospital smoothly."

8. That being the position, some of the employees, who are with the rival group with malafide intention to circumvent the orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench as well as the orders passed in C.R.P. and also the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 13362/2022, $13288-13291/2022$ , the respondents/defacto complainants have filed the present complaints making false allegations against the petitioner and to make that the petitioner shall not proceed with the administration of the Institution, pursuant to the orders of the Arbitrator.

9. Learned senior counsel Sri Dammalapati Srinivas appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that as directed by the Division Bench appointing Sri Justice Devinder Gupta, as sole Arbitrator is with the consent of both parties, hence, the Arbitrator has appointed the petitioner as Administrator vide orders dated 14.05.2022; when said order was stayed/suspended by the Civil Court in AOP No.2/2022 and $3/2022$ , said orders were interfered by this Court in C.R.P.No.983 of 2022 vide order dated 26.05.2022 as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 13362/2022, 13288-13291/2022.

10. Apart from the above, some of the members also approached the Delhi High Court against the appointment of the petitioner as administrator and the Delhi High Court also granted statu quo, after recording that the petitioner has taken position as Administrator. Though there are several orders staring against particular group of members, only to circumvent the above said orders, the present complaints have been filed by the respondents/defacto complainants.

11. Learned senior counsel further argued that the tone and tenor of the complaints itself clearly disclose the intention $of$ the

$\overline{3}$

employees/defacto complainants that the petitioner herein should not work as an Administrator as appointed by the arbitrator.

12. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the -State, on instructions, submitted that this is a dispute between the two groups and state has nothing to do with this; in fact, the complaint is made by one of the employees for restraining the employee to discharge his duties, as per the orders passed by the competent civil courts.

13. Learned public Prosecutor has submitted that particular employee has filed against the petitioner herein, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada and the same was numbered as O.S.No.1427 of 2022, wherein the court granted an ad interim injunction on 26.07.2022, which is as follows:

"Hence ad-interim injunction is granted in favour of petitioner by dispensing notice to the respondents restraining the respondent No.1, his men, representatives, associates and agents etc. From ever interfering with peaceful functioning of the plaintiffs senior as Senior Manager Accounts department at the plaint schedule offices of D2 in any manner whatsoever till 2-9-2022 subject to compliance of Order 39 Rule 3(a) CPC."

14. In view of the said circumstances, the petitioner purposefully wants to interfere with the function of the duties of the respondents by following the orders granted by the competent civil court on 26.07.2022, left with no option, the complainants have filed the present complaint and there are specific allegations against the petitioner. Further, learned Public Prosecutor also placed the copies of the photographs of a room, which shows that there is a room of having multiple doors and discloses that certain doors were opened.

Learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the judgments of 15. the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs.

State of Maharashtra and Others¹ wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court

fixed some principles and guidelines while entertaining the applications

by the High Courts, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., held as follows:-

"In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted" during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:

i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

$x$ ) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore,

$1$ 2021 SCC OnLines SC 315

when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

$\overline{6}$

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;

$xv$ ) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;

xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order.

xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."

$\mathbb{L}$

16. In view of the above said guidelines, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the Court should maintain restrictions in passing the interim orders at the initial stage; in the instant case, the complaints have been made by the employees of the Institution, for restraining them to attend their duties as per the directions of the Civil Court in O.S.No.1427 of 2020. Therefore, interference by this court at this stage, is contrary to the directions made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred above.

$\overline{7}$

17. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that in the instant case, punishment for all the sections alleged in the FIRs, are below seven years and bailable offences, this court may not interfere at this stage and sought for investigation may go on.

Heard both the counsel at length and perused the material on 18. record.

After hearing both the counsel, on perusal of the orders passed by 19. this Court in Writ Appeal as well as in the Civil Revision Petition and in view of the order of the Apex Court in above referred Civil Appeals that there is a clear mandate in favour of the petitioner and also it clearly discloses that upon defeating their attempts in civil matters, by approaching various Courts by way of various original petitions, present complaints have been made. A reading of the present manifestly complaints clarifies the intention $of$ the complainants/respondents that the petitioner shall not be allowed to proceed pursuant to the orders of the competent Arbitrator, who was appointed with the consent of the both the parties, by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court. All these complaints allegations are similar and the intention of the defacto complainants/respondents, which shall not be allowed to perpetuate further.

In the above circumstances, there is no other option except to 20. stay all further proceedings pursuant to the FIRs in Crime Nos.378 of 2022, 375 of 2022 and 308 of 2022 on the file of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur District. $\mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{C}} \times \mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{C}} \times \mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{C}} \times \mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{C}} \times \mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{C}} \times \mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{C}} \times \mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{C}}$

8

SD/- M.PRABHAKARA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

RODDING

$\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{G}}$

1. The Station House Officer, Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur District

IITRUE COPYII

• 2. Parmathmani Venkata Suresh Kumar, S/o Nageswara Rao, aged about 42 years, resident of NRI Quarters, Chinakakani Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District Working as Senior Manager HR at NRI Acadamy of Science.
• 3. Rompicherla Kishore, S/o Subba Rao, aged 44 years, Mylavaram, Vijayawada, NTR District.
• 4. Somu Krishna Murthy, Secretary, NRI Acadamy of Sciences, Chinakakani, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur Urban, Guntur District (2 to 4 By RPAD)
• 5. One CC to M/s. S Pranathi Advocate [OPUC]
• 6. One CC to Sri T. Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
• 7. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
• 8. One spare copy

SP

To,

DRJ

DATED: 05/08/2022

POST AFTER FOUR (04) WEEKS

ORDER

IA No. 2 OF 2022 IN CRLP Nos: 6026, 6027 & 6037 OF 2022

INTERIM STAY