CRLP/3711/2022 of BANDI MEKALA BALARAMUDU Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 31 December 2024

ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[1] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in C.C.No.549 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860[2] and Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act[3].

1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’

2for short ‘IPC’

3 for short ‘EC Act.’

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 without there being any material against him to connect the Petitioner/Accused with the alleged crime. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner was not at the scene of offence at the relevant time and Petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence. 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 have to be revealed 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.1 in C.C.No.549 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?

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 present case has been registered alleging that, on receipt of information about illegal storage of PDS Rice, Respondent No.2 along with the Vigilance and Enforcement Officers, Anantapuramu conducted raid in the house bearing D.No.15/200, Teachers’ Colony, Yadiki Village and Mandal, Anantapuramu District and found 223 plastic bags and 17 gunny bags containing 50 kgs of PDS rice in each bag. On enquiry, they came to know that the said house belongs to one Shukur and the same was taken on rent by the Petitioner/Accused. On further enquiry, it was revealed that, the Petitioner/Accused procures PDS rice, stores the same in the said house and sells it in black market for higher price. As such, the present case in Crime No.130 of 2016 on the file of Yadiki Police Station, Anantapuramu for the offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of EC Act was registered. Police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the Petitioner/Accused, which is numbered as C.C.No.549 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him.

8. It is the contention of the Petitioner that, he was falsely implicated in the present case without there being any material against him. However, the same is not a ground to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner. The contents of the charge sheet would clearly go show that, the present case was registered against the Petitioner/Accused as the Police found 223 plastic bags and 17 gunny bags containing 50 kgs of PDS rice in each bag in his house. It is not the contention of the Petitioner that the said house does not belong to him. There is verifiable material to be disclosed during trial. As such, the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused cannot be quashed at the threshold and no prejudice is going to be caused to the Petitioner herein except subjecting himself to trial.

9. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused and accordingly, the petition deserves dismissal.

10. In result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________

Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Crl.P.No.3711 of 2022

Dated:31.12.2024 Dinesh