Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sangita Rambabu Rotta, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 3 March, 2021
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1287 of 2021
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") is filed seeking quash of F.I.R in Crime No.513 of 2020 of Rajanagaram Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent/State.
3. The 2nd respondent, who is the de facto complainant, is a constable working in Rajanagaram Police Station. He has lodged a report with the police stating that on receipt of information relating to manufacturing of illicit liquor that he along with other constables went to the scene of offence on the instructions of the Sub-Inspector of Police and immediately on their arrival at the said place that the persons, who are present there, ran away on seeing them. They went back to the Police Station and informed the same to the Sub-Inspector of Police. It is stated that again on instructions of Sub-Inspector, he along with other constables went to trace the absconded accused. When they reached the place where they are staying, again the said persons ran away after seeing the police. When the police are after them and chased them to apprehend them that the petitioners have obstructed him and the other constables who are in discharge of their official duties and they also assaulted them.
2
4. The said report was registered in the above crime for the offences punishable under Sections 353 r/w 34 IPC. The said case is now under investigation.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are no allegations in the F.I.R which attract the offence under Section 353 IPC as there is no specific allegation that there was any assault or criminal force used against the 2nd respondent and the other constables. Therefore, the facts of the case do not attract any offence under Section 353 IPC. He would further submit that the criminal case was falsely foisted against the petitioners with all false allegations.
6. A perusal of the allegations set out in the F.I.R prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. The contents of the report clearly show that when the de facto complainant and the other constables were on duty and while they were discharging their official duty to apprehend the absconded accused who involved in manufacturing illicit liquor that the petitioners have obstructed them from apprehending the accused and they also assaulted him. The words "maapai dhourjanyam chesinaru" clearly indicate that there was an assault or criminal force against the de facto complainant by the petitioners. Therefore, the contents of the F.I.R prima facie constitute offence under Section 353 IPC. Whether the said allegations set out in the F.I.R are true or not, is a matter to be ascertained during the course of investigation. The said disputed question of fact cannot be gone into by this Court in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, in exercise of its inherent powers, either to quash the F.I.R or to interdict the investigation. 3 As already noticed supra, in view of the specific allegations set out in the F.I.R which prima facie constitute offence under Section 353 IPC, the matter requires investigation to find out the truth or otherwise of the said allegations. Therefore, this Court absolutely do not find any valid legal ground emanating from the record warranting its interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the F.I.R.
7. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and it is dismissed accordingly.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 03.03.2021 AKN 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CRIMINAL PETITION No.1287 of 2021 Date: 03-03-2021 AKN