CRLP/3709/2022 of BANDI MEKALA BALARAMUDU Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 31 December 2024

1. VIJAYA KUMAR NAIDANA

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following: ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[1] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.2, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in Crime No.57 of 2021 on the file of Peddapappur Police Station, Anantapur District registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[2]and Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act[3].

2. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Naidana, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case and except the confessional statements of Accused No.1, there is no incriminating material to connect the Petitioner/Accused No.2 with the alleged crime. Learned counsel would further submit that, no property has been seized from the possession of the Petitioner/Accused No.2. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner in the commission of the offence and the same has to be proved during investigation. At this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioner cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Point for Determination

5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:

Whether the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in Crime No.57 of 2021 on the file of Peddapappur Police Station, Anantapur, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?

2 for short ‘I.P.C.’

3 for short ‘EC Act.’

Determination by the Court

6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial court, court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.

7. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others[4]is considered as the guiding torch in the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances necessary to invoke this jurisdiction are spelt out as follows;

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and 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 a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry 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 whim or caprice.”

8. The present case has been registered alleging that, on 24.03.2021 at about 02.00 p.m., on receipt of credible information about illegal transportation of PDS rice, Respondent No.2 along with his staff and Revenue Officials went to Tadipatri-Gooty road, Cheemulavagupalli Village, Peddapappur Mandal and found PDS rice in 17 plastic bags containing 50 kgs of rice in the each bag in an Auto bearing No.AP 02 X 5745. On seeing them, the driver of the said Auto, who is Accused No.1 tried to skulk away. On apprehension and questioning, Accused No.1 confessed that he procured the said rice illegally from the card holders of the surrounding villages and sells the same to the Petitioner/Accused No.2 for higher price and in turn, the Petitioner would sell the same for more price in Karnataka State. Based on the said confession, the present case in Crime No.57/2021 for the offence under Section 420 read with 34 IPC and Section 7(1) of EC Act on the file of Peddapappur Police Station, Anantapur District has been registered against Accused Nos.1 and 2. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner/Accused No.2 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him.

9. As seen from the material placed on record, it is clear that the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is alleged to have been the proposed purchaser of the PDS rice. Except the confessional statement of Accused No.1, there is no iota of evidence to prove that the Petitioner/Accused No.2 has committed the alleged offence. Further, no property has been seized from his possession. In such circumstances, registration of the crime against the Petitioner on the allegation of illegal procurement of PDS rice and its sale in the black market, and continuation of prosecution against him, is not tenable under law.

10. In view of the guideline No.3 in Bhajanlal’s case (supra), the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of the alleged offences by the Petitioner/Accused No.2. As such, this Court finds that there are justifiable grounds to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, as the very ingredients of the offending Sections are not attracted against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 the criminal proceedings initiated against him are liable to be quashed.

11. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.2 in Crime No.57 of 2021 on the file of Peddapappur Police Station, Anantapur District for the offence under Section 420 read with 34 IPC and Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, are hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________

Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:31.12.2024Dinesh THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Crl.P.No.3709 of 2022

Dated:31.12.2024 Dinesh