Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Baru Mallikarjuna B. Mallikarjuna Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 January, 2024
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6368 of 2021
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in C.C.No.9 of 2018 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, for the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(a)(b) of Electricity Act, 20032.
2. Factual Background
a) On 16.12.2018 L.W.1-A.Srikanth, the-then Assistant Engineer, DPE-II, APSPDCL, Nellore Circle inspected the house of the Accused and found out that he was using single phase supply dishonestly and income supply barrel wires had been tapped before the meter with the help of 10 meters length PVC brown coloured Aluminum wires and were connected to separate switch board and thereby indulged in theft of energy dishonestly to his house, due to which APSPDCL sustained loss to the tune of Rs.16,022/-.
b) Based on the complaint lodged by L.W.1, a case in Crime No.4422 of 2017 for the offence under Section 135 (1) (a) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003 before Vigilance & APTS Police Station, APSPDCL, 1 for short 'Cr.P.C' 2 for short 'the Act' 2 Nellore, was registered. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed, which culminated into C.C.No.9 of 2018 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore for the above said offence. The said C.C is sought to be quashed by Petitioner/Accused, vide this Petition. Hence, the Crl.P. Arguments Advanced at the Bar
3. Heard Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit there is a delay of five days in lodging the report and there is also delay of 42 days in sending the F.I.R to the concerned Court. He would also submit that though the petitioner filed W.P.No.5144 of 2018 and obtained interim order on payment of 50% of the assessment and thereafter the electricity connection was restored, the respondents had lodged the present complaint. He would further submit that since the petitioner lodged a report to the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau stating that the Electricity Department and Revenue Department had colluded with the owners of illegal bore wells and had given connections without having permission, the respondents bore grudge and implicated the petitioner in the present case. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the 3 petitioner is an abuse of process of law and prayed to quash the proceedings against petitioner.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against petitioner. It is submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner would squarely attract the offence alleged against the petitioner and therefore, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed against petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:
Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.9 of 2018 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, for the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(a)(b) of Electricity Act, 2003?
Determination by the Court
7. While exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it must be kept in mind that the Code envisages that the same is 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 court of appeal or a court 4 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.
8. In support of their contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others3, wherein, it was held 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 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 3 AIR 1992 SC 604 5 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. (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.
(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.
(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. (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.
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."
(Emphasis supplied) 6
9. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the F.I.R was sent to the Court with a delay of 42 days. However, the said F.I.R was registered by Vigilance & APTS Police Station, APSPDCL, Nellore and in due course, the said police station might have sent the F.I.R with delay. Needless to say that it is not uncommon to the Courts to receive F.I.Rs as a bunch in electricity cases. The procedural laches in sending the F.I.R to the Court cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
10. The other ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, though the petitioner obtained interim order in W.P.No.5144 of 2018 and his electricity connection was restored, the respondents had lodged the present complaint. As far as the interim Order passed in W.P.No.5144 of 2018 is concerned, for ready reference, the prayer made and the Order passed therein are extracted hereunder:
"Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to forthwith restore the petitioners LT1(B)- Domestic Electricity connection bearing Service No.3621314000121 situated at Chainnappareddi Palle (N914) Village, Venkatagiri Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, pending disposal of WP 5144 of 2018, on the file of the High Court.
The Court while directing issue of notice to the Respondents herein to show cause as to why this application should not be complied with, made the following order.(The 7 receipt of this order will be deemed to be the receipt of notice in the case).
ORDER:
Subject to the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only), the respondents are directed to restore the power supply forthwith, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner."
11. Perusal of the record further shows that the said Writ Petition does not pertain to the theft of electricity said to have been committed by the petitioner. Further, the charge sheet would disclose that the theft of energy was provisionally estimated at Rs.16,022/-. That is the reason why the Court put a condition for payment of Rs.8,000/- for restoration of the power supply.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, since the petitioner lodged a complaint against the Electricity Department and Revenue Department officials, the present complaint has been filed against the petitioner with a mala fide intention. It is alleged in the complaint that on 16.12.2017 at 11.37 a.m., the-then Assistant Engineer, APSPDCL, Nellore along with mediators namely Kamadeni Rajamma and Thumala Subbaratnamma, on inspection, found that the petitioner/accused was indulged in theft of electricity. At this stage, this Court cannot give any finding to the effect that this is a false case. The said allegation has to be proved by examining the concerned technical people of the Electricity 8 Department, during the course of trial and this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot conduct a mini trial. The case is not falling under any of the guidelines mentioned in Bhajanlal's case (supra). The allegations in the complaint and the averments made in the charge sheet would prima facie disclose that there is an act of theft of energy said to have been committed by the petitioner and truth or otherwise of the said allegations has to be revealed during trial before the trial Court.
13. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the allegations made in the complaint are sufficient enough for the trial to be taken up and thereby, the present petition deserves dismissal.
14. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 04.01.2024 Dinesh 9 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.6368 of 2021 Dated: 04.01.2024 Dinesh 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI **** CRIMINAL PETITION No.6368 of 2021 Between:
Baru Mallikarjuna @ B.Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o.Late B.Venkata Krishnaiah, Aged about 72 years, Occupation Cultivation, R/o.Chinnappareddypalli Village Post, Venkatagiri Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. .... Petitioner And
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P at Amaravathi.
2. The Station House Officer, Vigilance @ APTS Police Station, APSPDCL, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. ... Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 04.01.2024 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Her Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No _______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 11 * THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA + CRIMINAL PETITION No.6368 of 2021 % 04.01.2024 Between:
Baru Mallikarjuna @ B.Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o.Late B.Venkata Krishnaiah, Aged about 72 years, Occupation Cultivation, R/o.Chinnappareddypalli Village Post, Venkatagiri Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. .... Petitioner And
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P at Amaravathi.
2. The Station House Officer, Vigilance @ APTS Police Station, APSPDCL, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. ... Respondents ! Counsel for petitioner : Sri Sita Ram Chaparla ^ Counsel for Respondents : Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor < Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
AIR 1992 SC 604 This Court made the following: